Author: Jonas Bylund
Date: 10:05:58 04/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 10, 2003 at 12:39:59, Christophe Theron wrote: >On April 10, 2003 at 12:02:05, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On April 10, 2003 at 11:37:50, Jonas Bylund wrote: >> >>>On April 10, 2003 at 10:27:57, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On April 10, 2003 at 10:11:21, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 10, 2003 at 09:25:09, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 10, 2003 at 09:20:15, ERIQ wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>These are all great goals, but I like this order better. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>* A Linux/bsd version of Chess Tiger w/ great gui ie. Eboard or better. >>>>>>>* A native ARM version of Chess Tiger for Palm >>>>>>>* Chess Tiger 16 >>>>>>>* ...and a few more projects that I prefer to keep secret >>>>>>> >>>>>>>basis for order is: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>1.I will have a freebsd system running in about two week hopefully (just waiting >>>>>>>on hardware to arrive) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>2.As soon as I could buy a new sony palm I will. So I can win a game from time >>>>>>>to time :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>3.And ct16 should be last because ct15 is already too strong!! whether it's >>>>>>>first or last on that silly list that everone likes, I can't beat it on a 486 >>>>>>>comp. And yes I've tried shamlessly >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Just my two cents. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sign, >>>>>>> Eriq >>>>>> >>>>>>a dual version of CT15 would kick more butt than ct16 or working at the unknown >>>>>>freebsd. note that freebsd allows multiprocessing but multithreading at it i >>>>>>cannot advice. >>>>> >>>>>I think a dual version of CTX would be great! maybe we should have a hands up >>>>>here, to see if we can influence the order of things ;) (note: people with dual >>>>>processor systems votes count double, ok maybe only 1.7 :) >>>>> >>>>>Jonas >>>> >>>>Some people are simply too lazy or have too much bugs in their software to get >>>>stuff parallel well to work. >>>> >>>>It will be always like that. >>> >>>Well i don't know where that came from, but i am quite sure that an accomplished >>>programmer like CT would have no problems making Tiger SMP. >> >>in which case he is just plain lazy now. > > > >Vincent I have explained that I have other priorities. I respect that you have other priorities, i can relate on a different level. >Why should I spend time on a task that I estimate is mostly a waste of time? You shouldn't if that's what you really think priorities aside, but i wonder how you can call it a waste of time when 3 of the absolute top programs have SMP implimented; Junior, Fritz and Shredder. Not to mention the other strong engines out there which are SMP too... >Can you mention the benefits that has brought to you the multiprocesor version >of Diep? More strenght (however minute that might be) >Have you won any tournament thanks to it? Has it improved your image, the >perception of quality in the eye of your future customers? How much money (=fuel >to continue improving your chess engine) have you made from it? This is not the point at all, we simply don't have, Diep running on a single processor, results from serious competition (not that i know of) therefore there is no precedence indicating what Diep/Vincent have gained from SMP. I disagree with Vincent on a lot of issues, but where i agree with him is: a program that can run single, dual, quad or even 500 processors is more a program of the future than one that only runs single. The only thing stopping me from buying Diep is the lack of WB/UCI support! >How can you justify that it has not been an almost complete waste of time? How can you justify that compchess in general is not a complete waste of time, well i am sure that what ignited a spark in you to write a chess program as great as CT is not far away from the spark igniting Diep as we know it today, the things we do as humans to create, is a fine line between waste of time and fulfillment. Jonas
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.