Author: Uri Blass
Date: 20:23:33 09/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 17, 2004 at 18:33:53, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. I do not agree Nothing is clear. multiple cpu gives an advantage but in the past Shredder won with a single cpu and Fritz also won with a single cpu against deep blue prototype. Uri
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.