Re: [computer-go] SlugGo approach: GNU vs.Goliath

["Jim O'Flaherty, Jr." <jim_oflaherty_jr@xxxxxxxxx>]

Vincent,

John Carmack of Id software, the creators of Quake and Doom III, has spoken about this issue
frequently.  He is a person who is deeply respected in the PC gaming and graphics world.  In other
words, he knows what he is talking about in this area regarding Intel processors (and AMD).  Look
him up if you have any doubts.

The original Doom and Quake engines use optimized integers (no floating point) for all of the
internal engine calculations.  However, as he was redoing things for the Quake II engine, he did
an enormous number of tests and came to discover that moving from optimized integers to floating
point essentially did not have a negative impact on his engine's performance.  This is due to the
massive optimizations that have been occurring for math co-processors.  Since then, he has moved
all of his stuff to floating point and things doing the integer optimizations are not worth the
effort for many reasons.  All the video card companies are doing that same.

What confuses me is how you can make such statements so emphatically when leaders in a field
clearly contradict your "silly summations".  You apparently have the emotional association for
"certainty" ineffectively tied to your internal emotional state "confidence".  It appears you say
things with a deep and intense feeling of "confidence" somehow thinking that generates certainty,
which it does not.

Anyway, I have moved to just lightly scanning your posts.  I am finding it difficult to ferret out
the value in what you write.  Don't get me wrong, you do occasionally say something that causes me
to re-check my premises and to think through some of my own understanding and assumptions. 
However, the noise to data ratio for you is sufficiently high enough, I am moving to mostly filter
you out.

I have a request for you: Please considering speaking with less fervor and more questions.  Will
you accept the request?  If you do accept this request, it will do wonders to change the way I
personally "listen" you.


Jim


--- Vincent Diepeveen <diep@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> If you aren't too lazy to do another 5000 optimizations it's 3 times faster
> than it is now.
> 
> Vincent
> 
> At 15:58 6-1-2005 +0100, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
> >
> >> At 15:29 6-1-2005 +0100, Arend Bayer wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> You guys are making jokes i hope about using floating point in
> evaluation.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Nothing as slow and non deterministic like floating point. Additional
> >> >> certain compilers will use all kind of tricks with floating point giving
> >> >> massive roundoff errors.
> >> >
> >> >Surely you must be joking that these problem are relevant for the move
> >> >valuation in GNU Go.
> >> 
> >> It is relevant. It's 2 times slower at least.
> >
> >I am absolutely shocked by this news. This makes GNU Go about 0.01%
> >slower.
> >
> >Thank you very much for your help, I am so indebted to you.
> >Arend
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >computer-go mailing list
> >computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
> 

_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/