Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 11:44:23 07/17/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 17, 1998 at 13:49:55, Roberto Waldteufel wrote:
>Hi Don,
>
>The more restrictions you add, the more programmers are excluded. I program in
>32-bit compiled Basic, and tweak intensively used code with Assembler, on a
>Pentium 333, so I guess that would disqualify me on three counts? I don't think
>there can be much argument that Assembler is best for performance, but harder to
>program in. So if a programmer accepts the challenge and puts in the extra
>effort to write an Assembler program that does exactly the same as an eqivalent
>C program, but twice as fast, surely this is a greater programming achievement?
You are right. Your program should not be excluded because it is programmed in
Basic/Assembler. No problem.
The Pentium 333 could be a problem if we decide that 300MHz is the limit, but
surely we could work around that in several ways. Maybe by giving you 10% less
time, as this was done in the last WMCCC in Paris when a fast computer was
playing against one of the provided K6-200.
If we are wise enough (are we?) to try to solve such "problems" in a positive
way, the event could take place.
>I don't think it is possible to completely separate "programming" from hardware.
>Programmers and programs exist only because of the hardware that supports them.
>To my mind, the "best chess programmer" is hardware dependant. It is about
>squeazing best possible chess out of a given hardware configuration, and as such
>I think that the "best programmer" of an Alpha is a different thing from the
>"best programmer" of an Intel. And in both cases, the programmer that writes an
>efficient Assembler program is likely to be the one to achieve the necessary
>efficiency,regardless of hardware.
It is impossible to organize a stricly uniform platform event, I know. But it is
possible to get near that, which is interesting enough I think.
We could say that the choice of the processor is one of the programmer's skills.
If we agree on "400MHz Alpha roughly as fast as 300MHz Intel for chess
programming", we are still comparing the programmer's skills.
>If it is not to be "anything goes" in terms of programming language, you get
>into a minefield of who to allow and who to exclude. What's wrong with Pascal,
>for instance? In the format you suggest, it should be called the "Chess
>C-programmer's Championship"!
IMO, anything goes in term of programming language. So no problem with your
program or a Pascal program or a Cobol program.
Christophe
This page took 0 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.