Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: significant math

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 15:34:35 11/20/02

Go up one level in this thread


On November 20, 2002 at 16:52:11, Dan Andersson wrote:

>>Why does this matter?  The point is that a bitmap program and a non-bitmap
>>program
>>are playing with equal skill.  If you want to take the position that one of the
>>programmers
>>is very good and the other is very bad, that's ok.  I know my programming skill.
>> I can't
>>speak for anybody else.  So that leaves us at "yace is poorly written and Crafty
>>is well-written
>>so the comparison is invalid."
>>
>>I don't buy that...
>>
>You don't have to. And I can only conclude that your sometimes overactive
>imagination made you think that. And that has nothing whatsoever to do with the
>issues discussed. The issue IMO is would any one of the programs would benefit
>from a different data representation.

That wasn't what was being discussed.  It was quite simply:

"will a bitmap program gain more from moving from 32 bit to 64 bit architecture
than
 a non-bitmap program?"

It then degenerated into:

"is a bitmap program significantly worse than a non-bitmap implementation to
start with
 on an X86 architecture?"

I think the latter can be answered by taking a look at bitmap and non-bitmap
programs and
comparing their results on equal hardware.  Fritz/tiger are pretty equal.
Crafty/yace are
pretty equal.  The conclusion is that bitmaps don't necessarily handicap or help
a program
on X86.

Then we go back to the other question which I _know_ the answer to, namely that
64 bit
programs will get a bigger boost from moving to 64 bits than non-64bit programs.
 And I
gave an example of this as well...


> And what will happen on a 64 bit machine.
>Not some veak claim of: Since these two programs are of similar strength. I
>therefore conlude I am right. Weak logic. Handvaving and apples and oranges is
>what I read. Not that I believe that you are wrong. But the fact is that you
>make a claim and when you are asked to back it up. You resort to very shaky
>lines of reasoning.

I resort to the _only_ method of reasoning there is at the moment.  I'm not
interested in
rewriting Crafty to use non-bitmaps so that _everything_ will be the same.  I
doubt any
non-bitmapper is interested in doing the inverse.  All that is left is to see if
we see any
"class" of program that seems to be significantly stronger than the other.  I
say no, for
the examples cited above.

it's not "science" but it also isn't a "coin toss" either...

And, in fact, it is about the only data we have to look at.




>
>MvH Dan Andersson



This page took 0.08 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.