Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: significant math

Author: Vincent Diepeveen

Date: 16:13:39 11/19/02

Go up one level in this thread

On November 19, 2002 at 16:55:55, Alessandro Damiani wrote:

>On November 19, 2002 at 16:31:15, Russell Reagan wrote:
>>On November 19, 2002 at 16:24:36, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>>>On November 19, 2002 at 16:22:14, Russell Reagan wrote:
>>>>You can't prove either to be clearly better than the other, but you can give >evidence that they are comparable in terms of performance.
>>>You haven't done that. You've shown that they reach similar NPS.
>>>NPS =/= performance
>>You need to clearly define what the hell you want then. Vincent too. You two sit
>>there and demand proof or evidence without providing any of your own, and then
>>when someone provides what you ask for you say "That's not what I asked for." or
>>"that isn't valid" or whatever the excuse of the day is. Make it clear what you
>>want, or don't ask.
>>Sounds an awfully lot like what goes on at r.g.c.c to me. People responding with
>>stupid things like, "No..." with no "evidence" to support it.
>It is easier to say "no, this doesn't work." than trying to do the work oneself.
>Some politicians behave the same way. It is cheap.

A good definition of bitboards.

My move generator is 2.0 times faster than the one of crafty,
so there is no 'religion' here which i'm talking about. It's a simple
measurement which can be done. DIEP is no exception then however.

There are more non bitboarders over 2 times faster, like Yace.

I bet Christophe is too.

Best regards,

This page took 0.01 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.