Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 22:23:13 11/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 2002 at 20:23:36, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >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 Can a "ferkin idiot" make that kind of assessment? btw we are getting close to 1/2 terrabyte of space for the ftp box, soon I hope... > >>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.