Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 11:15:15 11/20/02

Go up one level in this thread


On November 20, 2002 at 12:12:37, Eugene Nalimov wrote:

>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.

Good.  I'm not sure I could "keep my head on" if I had to go back and say "I
need
more".  The chair is shaking his head at 1/2 terrabyte..  :)


>
>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 0.27 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.