Author: Reinhard Scharnagl
Date: 08:46:38 05/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2004 at 11:07:07, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On May 19, 2004 at 10:31:28, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: > >the 'main algorithm' > >J.C. what kind of nonsense you post? Different people simetimes are using different words. >90% of my program is evaluation not algorithm. You must be a genius. I cannot imagine an evaluation function without any sort of algorithm. And overmore you intuitivly have pointed to my main algorithm - I do not know from where you get your values instead. If this was not an algorithm, it for sure must be a kind of randomizer. So good luck for you in the coming competition. Still wondering, what sort of problems you might have with me. Reinhard. >>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.