Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Differences between 0x88 ,10x12 and Bitboards!?

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 0.32 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.