Smaug: a new chess engine based on glaurung

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw

User avatar
sje
Posts: 4675
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:43 pm

Re: The Intel C++ compiler

Post by sje »

bob wrote:
sje wrote:I rather doubt that the Red Hat machine could host the Intel compiler, but I might give it a shot on the Ubuntu box.
Red Hat is what I run (Fedora, actually). I have it running on a PIV and other boxes, so you should have no problems I can think of). I have it running on a 700 mhz Sony Vaio laptop as well.
The problem is that neither Fedora nor Ubuntu will install on the old Intel brand rackmount because of the idiot pseudo-RAID Promise IDE disk controller. It's the one that runs BEFORE the BIOS just to make it difficult to install an OS. I recall it was a royal PITA just to get Red Hat to install back in 2003. Oh, and Intel designers thoughtfully used a proprietary keyboard and mouse connector too. Thanks, guys. :roll:
Tord Romstad
Posts: 1808
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: The Intel C++ compiler

Post by Tord Romstad »

bob wrote:What better reason to install Linux? :)
I've already done that. :)

Actually, I even have two Linux installs (installed in virtual machines) on this computer: 64-bit and 32-bit Ubuntu. However, as a computer-illiterate person, there is no way I could use Linux as my main or only OS. It's a pity, really: Ideologically I am very fond of the idea of free software, and I hate Apple, but unfortunately Apple is the only company which makes hardware and software that suit my needs.

Tord
glorfindel

Re: The Intel C++ compiler

Post by glorfindel »

Tord Romstad wrote:[...] However, as a computer-illiterate person, [...]
I have read many too modest statements from you in this forum, Tord, but I think this is the most extreme. Or maybe it was just a joke. In that case it was a good one and I, for one, did laugh with it.

If Linux doesn't suit your needs, perhaps you could try a BSD variant. BSD Unix is also free software and after all it is in the heart of your favourite OS, so there might be more chances it will be good for you. Although I acknowledge that Apple has added a lot of stuff to it.

PS: I have never used BSD, but I intend to try it.
bob
Posts: 20943
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: The Intel C++ compiler

Post by bob »

glorfindel wrote:
Tord Romstad wrote:[...] However, as a computer-illiterate person, [...]
I have read many too modest statements from you in this forum, Tord, but I think this is the most extreme. Or maybe it was just a joke. In that case it was a good one and I, for one, did laugh with it.

If Linux doesn't suit your needs, perhaps you could try a BSD variant. BSD Unix is also free software and after all it is in the heart of your favourite OS, so there might be more chances it will be good for you. Although I acknowledge that Apple has added a lot of stuff to it.

PS: I have never used BSD, but I intend to try it.
I've tried both (Linux and FreeBSD). Linux kernel is better, performance-wise. But from a user's perspective, there is no discernable difference since both are POSIX compliant...
Tord Romstad
Posts: 1808
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: The Intel C++ compiler

Post by Tord Romstad »

glorfindel wrote:
Tord Romstad wrote:[...] However, as a computer-illiterate person, [...]
I have read many too modest statements from you in this forum, Tord, but I think this is the most extreme. Or maybe it was just a joke. In that case it was a good one and I, for one, did laugh with it.
I was perfectly serious. I have advanced knowledge in a few very narrow areas, but in general I don't feel comfortable working with computers and computer software. My preferred level of technology is still pen and paper, and these are also the main tools I use for chess programming.
If Linux doesn't suit your needs, perhaps you could try a BSD variant. BSD Unix is also free software and after all it is in the heart of your favourite OS, so there might be more chances it will be good for you. Although I acknowledge that Apple has added a lot of stuff to it.
Actually, I never noticed any significant difference between Linux and BSD. At the Unix level, Linux and Mac OS X are pretty much equivalent to me. The advantages of Mac OS X to me is the much more consistent and intuitive GUI, not having to tinker to make things work, and better integration between hardware and software.

Tord
krazyken

Re: The Intel C++ compiler

Post by krazyken »

bob wrote:
glorfindel wrote:
Tord Romstad wrote:[...] However, as a computer-illiterate person, [...]
I have read many too modest statements from you in this forum, Tord, but I think this is the most extreme. Or maybe it was just a joke. In that case it was a good one and I, for one, did laugh with it.

If Linux doesn't suit your needs, perhaps you could try a BSD variant. BSD Unix is also free software and after all it is in the heart of your favourite OS, so there might be more chances it will be good for you. Although I acknowledge that Apple has added a lot of stuff to it.

PS: I have never used BSD, but I intend to try it.
I've tried both (Linux and FreeBSD). Linux kernel is better, performance-wise. But from a user's perspective, there is no discernable difference since both are POSIX compliant...
From a sys admin perspective, I prefer BSD. Linux can get you better performance, but requires more tweaking and tends to be slightly less stable in the long run than BSD. From the user perspective, you are more likely to get the drivers for proprietary hardware in Linux and a better software selection. For personal computer use, I find Mac OS X really is the most hassle free with a good selection of software and security.
Uri Blass
Posts: 10410
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:37 am
Location: Tel-Aviv Israel

Re: The Intel C++ compiler

Post by Uri Blass »

Tord Romstad wrote:
glorfindel wrote:
Tord Romstad wrote:[...] However, as a computer-illiterate person, [...]
I have read many too modest statements from you in this forum, Tord, but I think this is the most extreme. Or maybe it was just a joke. In that case it was a good one and I, for one, did laugh with it.
I was perfectly serious. I have advanced knowledge in a few very narrow areas, but in general I don't feel comfortable working with computers and computer software. My preferred level of technology is still pen and paper, and these are also the main tools I use for chess programming.

Tord
This may mean that maybe other people need to learn from you how to use pen and paper for programming.

Uri
User avatar
michiguel
Posts: 6401
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:30 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois, USA

Re: The Intel C++ compiler

Post by michiguel »

Uri Blass wrote:
Tord Romstad wrote:
glorfindel wrote:
Tord Romstad wrote:[...] However, as a computer-illiterate person, [...]
I have read many too modest statements from you in this forum, Tord, but I think this is the most extreme. Or maybe it was just a joke. In that case it was a good one and I, for one, did laugh with it.
I was perfectly serious. I have advanced knowledge in a few very narrow areas, but in general I don't feel comfortable working with computers and computer software. My preferred level of technology is still pen and paper, and these are also the main tools I use for chess programming.

Tord
This may mean that maybe other people need to learn from you how to use pen and paper for programming.

Uri
No kidding. Tord is exaggerating, but I can relate to what he says. I use pencil and paper a lot when I am at the first stages of designing a new feature. Before that I spend several spare time hours spread over several days just thinking about it. That is what happens when a programming is not your mother tongue. I do not have huge chunks of time to invest on this hobby, and hours are scattered. If I want to take advantage of those hours, I better have clear schemes of what the heck I want to write.

The more time I spend with paper and a pencil (which I like), the less I spend on debugging (which I hate and it is already a lot of time).

Miguel
Tord Romstad
Posts: 1808
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: The Intel C++ compiler

Post by Tord Romstad »

michiguel wrote:No kidding. Tord is exaggerating, but I can relate to what he says. I use pencil and paper a lot when I am at the first stages of designing a new feature. Before that I spend several spare time hours spread over several days just thinking about it. That is what happens when a programming is not your mother tongue. I do not have huge chunks of time to invest on this hobby, and hours are scattered. If I want to take advantage of those hours, I better have clear schemes of what the heck I want to write.

The more time I spend with paper and a pencil (which I like), the less I spend on debugging (which I hate and it is already a lot of time).
Yes -- I was exaggerating a little, and what you write above sums up my feelings and style of working very well. Like you, I'm not a real programmer, but a mathematician. I do have a few years of professional programming experience, but only in Common Lisp, a language which is about as far as you can get from C/C++ in terms of style of work.

There are two main reasons I can't just sit down by a computer and program in C or C++. The first is that I find the inifinite edit-compile-run-debug loop typical of C programming unbearably painful. The only way to work for me is to do all I can to make sure I never create any bugs in the first place. I try to work out everything on paper first, and only sit down and type the code when I am 100% sure everything is correct. Of course, in practice it usually turns out that it isn't correct even when I am 100% sure, but in most cases the errors are very easy to spot and fix. In the remaining cases, i.e. when something doesn't work and it is not instantly obvious why it does not work, I take it as a clear sign that my code is too complicated, and that I should do some more pen-and-paper work and break the problem down to simpler sub-problems. I can't remember the last time I used a debugger.

The other reason is that C/C++ is too low-level to match my way of thinking. I lack the skills to write any non-trivial algorithm directly in C/C++, and I'm amazed that there are many programmers who seem to do it completely effortlessly. My approach is to first sketch everything on paper in vaguely Lispish pseudo-code, and run it through the slow and buggy pseudocode to C compiler built into my brain before typing it all on the computer.

Tord
zamar
Posts: 613
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:03 am

Re: Smaug: a new chess engine based on glaurung

Post by zamar »

All binaries posted in this thread are now downloadable at Smaug's homepage:

http://kiiski.info/smaug/

Thanks again for all who helped!!
Joona Kiiski