Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 16:20:45 10/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 29, 1999 at 18:33:14, Amir Ban wrote: >On October 29, 1999 at 16:59:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: > > >>9. Singular extensions (I don't know what you do, but genius, wchess, and >>others have/do use these) came from deep thought developers Hsu and Campbell. >> > >I talked with Kittinger in 1995. He didn't have SE then, and was skeptic if the >concept is right. > > >>the list goes on and on... >> >> >>>There is nothing special I have seen in the Crafty source code. Just the >>>basic things, well tuned and documented, but nothing special. >> >>No "special parallel search?" Non-trivial to do. Non-trivial to get right. >>etc. no unusual evaluation terms? Seems that _everybody_ suddenly decided >>that it was 'right' to probe in the search, not just at the root. I've been >>doing it about as long as Bruce (he wrote his own tablebase code, while I used >>the Edwards stuff that was public. Edwards was doing it before I was, >>obviously, as he wrote the probe code for Crafty. Whether he probed exactly as >>I do today is another question. But I notice that more and more commercial >>programs are doing that. Where'd it come from? >> > >It's obvious, but you need tablebases that are fast enough. That's the real >trick. > >> >> >>> >>>And what do you expect people to do with your source code anyway then >>>to have a look at it? Isn't that the purpose? >> >>Sure... but you guys don't get it. Intel spends a year of secrecy to >>develop a new processor. They spring it on the world, _and_ they publish >>papers describing _exactly_ what they did. IE they get the lead-time to take >>advantage, but then the publish details that takes the entire industry forward. >> > >It so happens I'm quite familiar with Intel, and there's no truth in what you >say. Intel will publish with a product anything that is needed to make you >comfortable using it and buying it. That's quite a lot, usually, but they won't >tell you anything beyond that. > >One of the things Intel currently does is a strategic effort to reinvent PC >architectire from an open standard into something Intel-proprietary. The >so-called "firmware hub", e.g., will replace the old BIOS, and the LPC bus >replaces the ISA bus. The specifications are secret or restricted to Intel >partners. If Intel succeeds in this, competitors like AMD will have a real >problem. > >Microsoft is doing something similar in the past few years. They made DOS into >the most successful OS ever by making it totally open and attracting third-party >developers, who really made DOS successful. Microsoft now thinks that those >third-party developers are a nuisance and they are closing many specifications. >For example, NTFS (the NT file-system) is not documented. David A. Solomon "Inside Windows NT / Second edition" Microsoft Press, Redmond, Washington, USA 1998 ISBN 1-57231-677-2 Chapter 9 "Windows NT File System (NTFS)" >Amir
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.