Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 16:13:01 09/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 19, 2004 at 15:32:17, Bryan Hofmann wrote: >On September 19, 2004 at 14:55:25, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On September 19, 2004 at 14:25:43, Bryan Hofmann wrote: >> >>>On September 19, 2004 at 12:54:57, Andrew Williams wrote: >>> >>>>On September 19, 2004 at 11:10:14, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hi -- I am looking for 2 or 3 beta testers who would receive >>>>>(full) source code to my program and in return would provide >>>>>input and comments about improving the search. They would >>>>>simply agree not to redistribute it and in fact discard it after >>>>>a week or two of looking at it (and commenting.) The program is in C, >>>>>5000 lines. The search and quiescence routines are 600 lines total. >>>>> >>>>>The reason I am considering this is due to hitting a brick wall at 249/300 >>>>>on WAC for several weeks now and knowing there are things I just cannot >>>>>find or go further with. The above score is at 1 second per position on a >>>>>1ghz P3 with a small transposition table. I am told that 270-300 is considered >>>>>"good" for this time control on this test. On this same machine >>>>>at the same time setting, with WAC, Crafty gets 270/300. >>>>> >>>> >>>>It strikes me that comparing your program with crafty (or any other program for >>>>that matter) based on 1 second searches in WAC is a bit weird. And a waste of >>>>time. I'm pretty sure, for example, that my program would do worse at WAC 1 >>>>second searches than yours on that hardware and I certainly don't care either >>>>way. >>>> >>>>Solving WAC positions is a *side-effect* of being a good program, in my opinion. >>>>I would strongly encourage you to play some games. Is your program WinBoard >>>>compatible? If so, send it to Leo Dijksman, Guenther Simon and lots of the other >>>>good testers who hang out at Winboard Forum. >>> >>>That would be asking the same people he insulted a few weeks ago calling them >>>Have Nots and that they should be excluded from the CCC as they did not program >>>chess engines. This is nothing more then a lackadaisical attempt to get someone >>>to fix his code from him. As far as I'm concerned the Brick Wall can fall on him >>>and his holier than tho attitude. >> >>I do not see why you are so hostile. > >Not hostile at all, I merely showed that his tongue and cheek sword he swings >has two edges; and both are sharp. > Internet bulletin boards are not great forums for the expression of sardonic wit, heavy sarcasm, etc. The modest proposal of which you are speaking was solicited, after all, by the board sponsor, as an idea. Do I really hate people who don't program? Of course not. They're more human than the programmers! Expressing my concern, albeit perhaps too strongly, in the fashion I did, hopefully left no doubt about the different kinds of communities on the board and the frustrations one might have with another in terms of bandwidth and limited resources for which a sponsor doesn't want to give a freebie endlessly as a public giveaway. If it personally offended anyone, remember the context in which it was formulated and the time in which it was proffered, and then reconsider that the offense only was taken if the ring of truth was near. Think about the bandwidth, think about who takes up the bandwidth (forget about me!) and then think about the sponsor. I wish to donate and plan to make a sizable donation when my current cash-crunch situation is over; I have the utmost respect for the board sponsor's public giveaway of this forum but know that a cost center is a cost center. Finding a new home will not be fun but we can't all freeload on Steve for the rest of eternity (though the memory will live on!) Stuart
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.