Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:33:53 09/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 17, 2004 at 18:23:16, martin fierz wrote: >[snip] > >>I won't argue that these people are doing good things but to call this >>scientific seems to be quite far-fetched to me. >> >>-- >>GCP > >it's a master's thesis. what do you expect, nobel-prize stuff? a master's thesis >is not 'scientific' in 99% of all cases. you find a thesis advisor, he tells you >what to do, you do whatever you can. > >in the conclusions, the author shows that he is quite aware of the fact that his >research ended early, saying that "unfortunately" time constraints didn't allow >for testing against a non-bitboard program. And in this case, I think David deserves a special congratulations. He got to do something that was: 1. Fun 2. Interesting 3. He wanted to do personally In other words, his hobby of chess programming was what he got to work on, and his school project gave him credit for creation of a parallel version of his program, which is what he wanted to do anyway. If you look at the last ICCA championship, it is clear that all future winners will have multiple CPUs.
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.