Author: Roberto Waldteufel
Date: 19:00:27 07/17/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 17, 1998 at 14:44:23, Christophe Theron wrote: >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 Hi Christophe, Sounds good to me. I have always programmed out of necessity for the computer I owned at the time, which happens to be a P333 at present. It will run OK on other Pentiums, but I don't know where I would get hold of one! For a uniform (or nearly so) platform, it would probably be best if some publicity-seeking company could be persuaded to loan the hardware for the event. Then everyone gets the same hardware, and nobody has to travel with their computer "on their backs". I would be travelling alone, and transporting my PC as well as my ordinary luggage would pose very great logistical problems for me. I think the best thing about this kind of event is the chance to meet other programmers in person and exchange ideas. I have never actually met anyone else who programs chess except on the net. Best wishes, Roberto
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.