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? Thanks, Eugene 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?) >> >>-- >>GCP > > >Yep and I don't do it. I've given you _real_ numbers. Of course you can >_always_ >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 >and >see if one speeds up _more_ than the other. If so, you have to explain why that >isn't >attributed to the 64 bit architecture...
This page took 0 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.