Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:54:13 02/20/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 1999 at 05:51:12, Stefan Meyer-Kahlen wrote: >On February 19, 1999 at 08:32:52, Peter Kasinski wrote: > >>Stefan, >> >>Sorry if I gave an unfair assessment of the many new features in Shredder. >>By no means was this an attempt at a comprehensive review. I leave that to KK. >> >>On the other hand, I am surprised that my post would have triggered a question >>"what's wrong with Shredder?". I was clearly impressed with your program. >>Even shortly after Paris I posted here congratulating you and asking why >>Shredder gets so little respect. Its showing in both main and blitz event was >>excellent and clearly demonstrated Jakarta was no fluke. > >It was not your post that triggered my reaction. If you feel personally attacked >I am sorry. I really appreciate it if somebody enjoys Shredder, honestly. > >>Now, as a self-proclaimed Shredder fan and defender :-) >>I have a couple of questions: >> >>a) What do you think about a dynamic tablebase lookup? > >This is already in my current version of Shredder, so the next release will have >it. > >>b) Is there a parallel Shredder in our future? > >Yes, there are plans to make it parallel. The next big tournament is a non micro >event, too. We'll see... (to Bob: Don't worry, I won't copy your SMP algorithms >:-) ) > >Stefan I'm not worrying at all. :) A couple of subtle bugs make copying that code _very_ risky for the copier. Due to the proliferation of 'copying' I have decided to 'leave the bugs in' as the algorithm can be studied to see how it works without ever noticing the three subtle 'bugs' in the current code. At least that will protect most of us from everybody in the world doing a parallel search by copying... The comments to describe a _very good_ parallel search algorithm, however, which is the point...
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.