Author: Alessandro Damiani
Date: 03:08:31 10/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 29, 1999 at 22:12:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. >> > >He was on ICC regularly about 3 years ago and used to talk with Bruce and >myself there all the time. He was using it. I don't know whether he kept >it, but he asked a lot of questions about it as he knew I had done it in CB >from our discussions at the last two ACM events. He started with PV singular >extensions, and seemed to be happy. I think he did it because Lang claimed that >genius 2 used them too. > Dave told me some weeks back that he uses a modified version of SE and is still interested in a discussion about SE. Alessandro > > >> >>>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. > >they have been around for a long time. I've been using them since 1995 on >PC machines, as has Bruce. Steven Edwards was using them way before that on >PC-class machines. The point is, everyone _assumed_ that you couldn't do the >I/O in the search, because it just feels wrong. No one thought a lot about >the idea of being more careful, probing only after captures that take you down >to the right number of pieces, etc. Steven Edwards is the author of that idea, >btw. not me. It just so happens that my source code, and my results probing >in the search (plus Ferret's results too, no doubt) convinced everyone that the >impossible was doable. > > > > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>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. > > >Do you ever read IEEE Micro? Or any of the other journals on VLSI and the >like? Check them out. I have. > >IE I have a video tape released by Digital right after the first alpha was >released. It had the original design team do presentations on each internal >feature of the alpha and why it was done the way it was. I have an entire >library of such tapes that I use in my architecture course. IBM explaining >their first internally-designed microprocessor. HP submitted a tape on the >HP PA architecture. > >They are far more open than you might realize, you just have to look. > >When intel released my quad xeon box, I downloaded the PDF that gives the >_complete_ specifications for the box. Connectors, clock timings, chips >supported, power supply specifications, hot-swap specifications... _everything_ >in a publicly downloadable (big) file. > > > >> >>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. >> > >Different issue. I don't care if there is competition or not. I only want to >know what they are doing, and that they provide in minute detail after a chip >hits the market. Because any good engineering house can figure it out anyway >with a microscope and logic analyzer... > > > > >>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. > > >It is better documented than you think. There are linux drivers around to >mount ntfs file systems under development. I don't know whether it was >reverse-engineered or microsoft has technical reports to explain ntfs, but >someone has access. > > > >> >>Amir > > >And I am not saying that playing the 'profit-first' game is horrible. Only >that it is not the way things were when I 'grew up'. And I definitely remember >that things were 'fun' when I was growing up.
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.