Author: Jonas Bylund
Date: 10:21:26 04/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 10, 2003 at 12:40:34, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On April 10, 2003 at 12:05:35, Jonas Bylund 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. >> >>I think the fact that he have expressed other priorities than SMP is more >>accurate than your guessing, maybe you are too lazy to ask him yourself? > >No my viewpoint is that tiger is a too buggy engine to get SMP easily, but we >will never find out, as he's too lazy to even try that. No doubts that you can >work forever at forward pruning and such stuff. With or without SMP. What ever made you think that a "buggy" program could make the top 3 of the strongest programs today?? (atleast as buggy as you suggest) When he says he has other priorities, then what makes you conclude from that, that he's lazy? a case of projection perhaps? >But if you first get a near to factor 2 faster with SMP with some effort then >you have your hands free too, to toy there. You do not make up for a factor 2 >simply with the same engine. As is understand CT it is a question of priorities and not "To SMP or not to SMP" >Nowadays new chips have SMT too. Within a few years that will work better on >coming cpu's than it does now. perhaps amd even will get it one day. that would >be awesome. I agree if you can and don't have other priorities then go ahead, prepare your program for the future instead of waiting 'till it is too late. >But Tiger will be still single cpu then most likely, which is a shame for such a >good engine. Priorities aside, i agree (if that is the case indeed) 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.