Author: martin fierz
Date: 10:04:25 09/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 10, 2002 at 06:42:40, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>On September 10, 2002 at 06:10:52, martin fierz wrote:
>
>>BTW, two more things about this:
>>1. "the position" is very unspecific. i seriously doubt you managed to find the
>>position where cake lost the game.
>>2. "chinook would play the right move" is also very unspecific. how long does it
>>take to find "the right move"? what kind of score does it have? are you sure it
>>doesn't switch back to the wrong move? the only thing which would convince me
>>was a search log...
>>
>>aloha
>> martin
>
>Is it that you think I'm an idiot and couldn't be bothered to look it up?
i assume you are an intelligent young man. I also realized from your posts that
you know nothing about checkers and were going to do just what you did - look it
up on the nemesis website. and give the wrong position to schaeffer as a result
:-)
>I didn't ask for a search log. I assume that if it was fluctuating he would
>have mentioned it ("it changes its mind often") or some such.
well, you should realize that without a search log it is meaningless. does
chinook find it (actually there is nothing to find in that position...) in 1
second? in one minute? in an hour? i have no idea, and there is obviously a big
difference there... does chinook see that black is worse? if yes, at what point?
just finding the "right move" alone can be coincidence...
>>>I took the time to look at it over a week before I posted here about it. Again,
>>>the state of the code is irrelevant. There is documentation of the database
>>>format provided -- so you don't have to even use that code to access the
>>>databases. You can write your own access code.
>>give me ONE good reason to post the database but not the access code to it. just
>>ONE.
>Why do you even ask for that? There _was_ code posted.
i can tell you why i ask. you look at the code, and you see that there are some
comments. but have you tried to figure out what they mean? have you tried to
write access code of your own? have you tried to adapt that code to work with
the 8-piece database? let me guess: no, no, and no? ed gilbert rewrote that code
*for days* and got it wrong in the end. i've never even attempted to clean up
that code because it i don't understand it.
if you have ever tried to write efficient database access code for GB-sized
databases, you know that this is not something you do in one afternoon. *that*
is why i ask. why does schaeffer make everybody who wants to use this database
in his program work so hard? he could just publish the "real" access code... it
would cost him *5 minutes* and save everybody who wants to use it *5 days*. now
that would be goodness of heart...
aloha
martin
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.