Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 08:07:07 05/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2004 at 10:31:28, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: the 'main algorithm' J.C. what kind of nonsense you post? 90% of my program is evaluation not algorithm. >On May 19, 2004 at 10:16:27, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On May 19, 2004 at 09:54:30, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: > >>i hope you realize nalimov egtb code when used makes executable sizes quite some >>larger. >> >>default diep is like its latest version: >> 16-05-2004 23:05 335.872 diepm_16may2004.exe >> >>but when i compiled once with nalimov egtb code a few months ago : >> >> 21-02-2004 01:48 2.002.944 diepm_20feb04_wb.exe >> >>Only difference : >> >> egtb.cpp > >That is your decision. > >>I did compile without -O2 by the way for the c++ code. >> >>So anyone using C++ you are going to doom? > >That is your opinion. > >>>On May 19, 2004 at 09:33:19, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On May 19, 2004 at 08:38:55, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 19, 2004 at 07:15:54, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 19, 2004 at 01:02:26, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>You obviously never wrote a chessprogram writing such utter nonsense at your >>>>>>homepage about executable size. >>>>> >>>>>Vincent, please cool down. >>>>> >>>>>Obviously you know neither me nor my experiences with that theme. >>>>> >>>>>May be you have not noticed, that I am always talking of the size of the >>>>>persistent data and exe AFTER COMPRESSING it, e.g. by WinRar. >>>>> >>>>>Regards, Reinhard. >>> >>>>I'm not using winrar but RKC. >>>> >>>>See for example : http://www.maximumcompression.com/programs.php >>> >>>You can choose what you want, but a self decompressing version would >>>be best. WinRar simply has been an example. Compression should be >>>needed only for the measuring act, that is all. >> >>winrar is no realtime executable compressor. > >Does it matter? > >>>>So whatever your uncompressed size, mine will be up to 4 to 10 times smaller in >>>>size than your outdated compression standards. >>> >>>Great. Then 1/4 MB seems to be quite reachable for you. >> >>yes and when started after a few years with that 1/4 MB i can also generate a GB >>or 10 of egtb's (all 6 men). another few years and all 7 men are there too. > >egtb's are not relevant for the quality of the main algorithm. They are >of high relevance in analysing tasks. But implementing huge look up tables >are counterproductive to bring e.g. evaluation functions foreward. > >Therefore analysing and playing programs have to be distinguished. > >>>>If i want to compress fast i'm using 7-zip btw. >>>> >>>>Also a single compile option can matter 500KB in size easily. >>>> >>>>Further moving from x86 hardware to IPF hardware means executable size for same >>>>program with same compiler already grows a factor 2-3. >>>> >>>>That's without being optimized of course with PGO. >>>> >>>>When you optimize with PGO your executable at IPF grows bigtime in size. >>>> >>>>Now so far we still discussed just C software. >>>> >>>>How about C++ guys, or delphi guys? >>>> >>>>They make no chance in your definition.... >>> >>>You will notice that the higher the language level is, the more you are >>>able to compress the resulting exe. Therefore measuring the size of the >> >>What will be left after compression will still be considerable larger. > >This is no contradiction to what I have said. > >>>compressed files would make you more independent from the decision, which >>>language you have selected for development. Other criteria there will be >>>more important. >>>Regards, Reinhard. >> >>In short you have a lot of crap statements at your homepage. It's loaded with >>it. I didn't find anything intelligent at your homepage. > >Simply open up your eyes! What makes you having problems with me? > >>For example try to lookup the difference between a preprocessor in chess and non >>preprocessor. >> >>You invented a new name for it without realizing what you were looking for. > >I have lost interest continuing to talk with you on that. > >Reinhard. > >>>>>>>On May 19, 2004 at 00:29:42, Joshua Shriver wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Are there any kind of hardware limitations in computer competitions? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>If not, I'd imagine people would just bring a small custom cluster. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>TSCP would beat Hiarcs or Shredder if tscp was parallelized and Hiarcs was on a >>>>>>>>486. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Just an idea; perhaps there should be some kind of limitation. >>>>>>>>If not then you're not really testing the strength of the engines, but a >>>>>>>>combination of code and hardware. In that case, whoever has the most money has a >>>>>>>>huge advantage. Especially if clustering is allowed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>Just my $0.02, curious to your opinions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Have you ever seen my limitation proposal to that theme at: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>[http://homepages.compuserve.de/rescharn/Compu/schachfair_e.html] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Regards, Reinhard.
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.