From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 11232c,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid11232c,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,583275b6950bf4e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-05-02 20:14:17 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: wv9557@yahoo.com (Will) Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.lang.ada,misc.misc Subject: Re: Using Ada for device drivers? (Was: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died) Date: 2 May 2003 20:13:20 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <4a885870.0305021913.31ffb745@posting.google.com> References: <9fa75d42.0304230424.10612b1a@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0304240950.45114a39@posting.google.com> <4a885870.0304291909.300765f@posting.google.com> <416273D61ACF7FEF.82C1D1AC17296926.FF0BFD4934A03813@lp.airnews.net> <4a885870.0304300431.49a61bfa@posting.google.com> <4a885870.0304301937.b27ec47@posting.google.com> <4a885870.0305012015.7bea7358@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.110.191 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1051931601 15072 127.0.0.1 (3 May 2003 03:13:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 May 2003 03:13:21 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:63074 comp.object:62617 comp.lang.ada:36895 misc.misc:13919 Date: 2003-05-03T03:13:21+00:00 List-Id: I hate to say it but your definition of algorithm is wrong. Algorithm is an established and provable way to solve a problem. There are steps you can follow to solve a Rubik cube. Now that is an algorithm. There is no documented way, that I know of, to win a chess game. Therefore there is not a chess algorithm. "Chad R. Meiners" wrote in message news:... > "Will" wrote in message > news:4a885870.0305012015.7bea7358@posting.google.com... > > There is no algorithm. Most chess programs uses alpha beta pruning or some > > variation of it. > > I hate to say it, but by definition if there is a program, then there is an > algorithm ;) > > > Unfortunately there is only so much that alpha can help speed up the > > search. They employ other heuristics like killer moves, null moves. > Techniques > > like hashing greatly speed things up. Most will also have a quiescent > search, > > which basically search fully all the capture moves until there is no more > > captures, this is to avoid the horizon effect. Chess software is really > > more like combination of techniques and intution than an exact algorithm. > > Thus a better algorithm would have better heuristics to prune the search. > > > Apparently the more positions you can look at an infinite amount of time > > I think you meant a finite amount of time. With in infinite amount of time > in chess you should be able to find a winning solution with an unoptimized > search ;) > > > the stronger your program is. Therefore an optimized assembly language > > program will beat the same C program, even if they use the same > techniques. > > Just because the assembly language can look at more positions than > > the C program. Implementation language DOES matters. > > Implementation always matters; no one said that it did not matter. Modern > Ada compilers are pretty good at optimizations so I would expect that there > should not be much of a difference between the run times of comparable C and > Ada programs. > > > Now does anybody else still want to write an Ada chess program to beat > > GNU Chess? For your information, GNU Chess is one of the weakest program > > out there. > > If a chess program is implemented in Ada that beats GNU Chess, what does it > prove? It proves nothing interesting. We already know that is possible to > write faster programs in Ada than C. Interesting enough we also know that > is possible to write faster programs in C than Ada. Implementation language > does not necessarily impact the speed of the resultant machine code. Every now and then, I see people trying things like rewriting OS in Ada (the Marte project) or doing DirectX in Ada. Despite of my profound aversion for Ada, I am impressed by what they are trying to do. I don't think they are out to prove a thing > > >Thank God the IBM researches went ahead with creating > > Deep Blue instead of speculating raw speed will outsmart human creativity. > > Maybe Ada addicts should try to beat GNU chess instead of offering > > speculations. > > False analogy--We have evidence for cases where similar algorithms result in > similar times; whereas, we have plenty of evidence that best guess > algorithms produce non-optimal results.