Computer Chess Club Archives




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

Author: Eugene Nalimov

Date: 22:31:28 11/19/02

Go up one level in this thread

On November 20, 2002 at 01:23:13, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>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
>>>>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 :-)
>Can a "ferkin idiot" make that kind of assessment?

That's not my conclusion. Please read his own words several lines higher:

>>>It took me years to make a fast generator. Not everyone is
>>>that great.


>btw we are getting close to 1/2 terrabyte of space for the ftp box, soon I

Today I find out that copying 200Gb over 100mbit/s network takes some time :-)


>>>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.

This page took 0.05 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.