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: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,583275b6950bf4e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 11232c,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid11232c,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-05-02 08:00:05 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!msunews!not-for-mail From: "Chad R. Meiners" 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: Fri, 2 May 2003 09:57:33 -0400 Organization: Michigan State University Message-ID: References: <9fa75d42.0304230424.10612b1a@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0304240446.493ca906@posting.google.com> <3EA7E0E3.8020407@crs4.it> <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: arctic.cse.msu.edu X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:63044 comp.object:62551 comp.lang.ada:36860 misc.misc:13900 Date: 2003-05-02T09:57:33-04:00 List-Id: "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. >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.