Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:57:39 08/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 16, 2000 at 14:38:04, Severi Salminen wrote: >Hi! > >Well, I have to say that yes, my assembly chess program played some chess (maybe >at 1200 ELO...), but it was indeed hard to write and debug. Now I'm asking how >does OOP (object oriented programming) suit for chess programming? Or should I >forget the C++ standard and stick to the plain old C? Are there any efficiency >aspects involved? I'm asking this because I'm quite new to OOP and would like to >start studying it only if it benefits chess programming somehow. I'll be using >the free Borland C++ 5.5 The efficiency difference is not important enough to worry about. Any differences in strength will be far more dominated by your choice of algorithms than by your choice of compiler. The biggest difference a compiler will make is a small constant factor. Junior (one of the world's strongest chess programs) is written in C++. I would write in whichever I was more comfortable with, if I were you. Since you are new to OOP, I suspect your C++ implementation would be dissapointing. On the other hand, it would be a good way to learn the language better. You will be dissapointed with the free Borland compiler for Chess programming. If you just want something free, I think you will find that Cygnus GCC emits better binaries.
This page took 0.01 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.