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