Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 09:12:37 11/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
I believe I have something like ~230Gb 6-men TBs right now. That includes 50+80Gb you have, so your disks are enough for a while. Thanks, Eugene On November 20, 2002 at 11:13:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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.