Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

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 0.01 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.