Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:13:12 11/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 20, 2002 at 01:31:28, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >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 > For the record, how much "stuff" are you sending? I currently have about 50 gigs of released tables, three, four, five and six piece files. I have about 80 gigs of stuff you have uploaded. I am ordering 3 146 gig scsi drives to start with, with room for at least two more easily and three if I mount the system drive outside the hot-swap bay. Don't tell me you are going to blow that before I get it installed? :) >>> >>>>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.