Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 17:23:36 11/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 2002 at 19:20:43, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 19, 2002 at 18:14:46, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On November 19, 2002 at 15:08:13, Daniel Clausen wrote: >> >>please mention me 1 bitboard program with a big eval. >> *NONE*. >> >>To me bitboards seems something for people who are no good >>programmers, because they can cut'n paste from crafty and >>go further with that. >> >>Optimizing gnuchess or gerbil or whatever to something real >>fast for your needs is way more difficult of course than >>starting with something that's working and written out in >>detail. >> >>Usually people also cut'n paste the SEE and qsearch from >>crafty then and they have something much better than they >>can produce in a lifetime most likely. >> >>That's the only attractive things from bitboards IMHO for >>several authors. >> >>And as long as they don't improve the evaluation a lot >>it remains like that. >> >>If on the other hand you look to what representation the >>good programmers go for, the picture is real clear. >> >>this has nothing to do with religion but with objective speed >>differences. My move generator without inline assembly and >>with general code for both sides, it is 2 times faster than >>crafty at any x86 processor. >> >>That's *objective* measurements. >> >>My SEE is better than the one from crafty, picking up more >>than Crafty does in the SEE. Very objectively provable. >> >>The list goes on and on. >> >>Most important thing however IMHO is that the source from >>crafty is free. If mine was free, everyone would start with >>DIEP and go further from there. I'm 100% sure of it. >> >>We saw this before. >> >>When GNUchess was the strongest freely available source code, >>people started with that crap. >> >>I wrote nearly every byte of my move generator. *every* byte. >> >>It took me years to make a fast generator. Not everyone is >>that great. > >If you worked years on optimizing part of the program that you use less than 1% >of your time then it means that you are not a good programmer. He is not good. He is great :-) Thanks, Eugene >Good programmers prefer to optimize the important parts. > >Working years to do your program 1% faster by a faster move generator seems to >me a big mistake. > >Uri
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.