Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: significant math

Author: Eugene Nalimov

Date: 14:15:46 11/19/02

Go up one level in this thread

I have 4 in my office (and that's 4 more than I wish :-) ).

And I believe Vincent used one on WCCC this summer, right?


On November 19, 2002 at 16:53:48, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On November 19, 2002 at 16:51:35, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>>On November 19, 2002 at 16:42:21, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>in other words, no evidence is acceptable?
>>I can't think of much that would do, certainly
>>nothing that has been produced here. There are
>>several ways I could be convinced without a real
>>proof, even.
>>If you, say, would rewrite Crafty in classical form,
>>spend time optimizing it, invite Vincent to do the
>>same and he ends up with something that's decidedly
>>slower than what you have now, then that's pretty good
>>evidence that for a program like Crafty bitboards are
>>the superior approach.
>>If the top 5 engine programmers speak out and all say
>>they use or switch to bitboards I'm also going to be
>>convinced it's the superior approach.
>>If after the switch to 64-bit hardware you end up
>>smashing me and Vincent by a significant margin then
>>I'm also going to be convinced.
>>Lots of ways to convince me, as long as they're not
>>based on hand-waving (you like that word, don't you?)
>Yep and I don't do it.  I've given you _real_ numbers.  Of course you can
>run the test that Bruce and I did for yourself.  Crafty's source is available,
>so you have
>access to a bitmapper.  Yours isn't a bitmapper so you have access to one that
>is not.
>Compile both using the same compiler on a 32 bit machine and on a 64 bit machine
>see if one speeds up _more_ than the other.  If so, you have to explain why that
>attributed to the 64 bit architecture...

This page took 0.08 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.