Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 12:09:14 11/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 2002 at 14:26:37, Dann Corbit wrote: >On November 13, 2002 at 12:33:53, J. Wesley Cleveland wrote: > >>On November 13, 2002 at 12:13:59, Bob Durrett wrote: >> >>[snip] >>>But is it not true that C, for example, used on a Linux machine is somewhat >>>different from C used on a Windows machine? The choice of operating system >>>surely must impact the guts of the language used. Maybe the language, such as C, >>>is better suited for use with one OS than another. True? >>> >> >>I think what you are getting at is that there are different versions of >>compilers for different OS's, e.g. MSVC for windows produces code that is ~10% >>faster than gcc for linux. > >The best compiler I know of for chess programming (Intel's) is available for >both Win32 and Linux. > >For Win32 and Linux as choices, there is little difference. Go with whichever >you are more comfortable with. If you write your code in ANSI/ISO C then it >will port to anything under the sun with a simple recompile. Therefore, the OS >is almost completely irrelevant. > >The choice of algorithm is literally orders of magnitude more important than the >choice of programming language. That is useful information. Thanks. But I'm sure you want to be completely fair about this. : ) To be completely fair about it, you must admit that there is much in the present-day chess engine algorithms which is the same for every engine. For example, there is all this lip service paid to "alpha-beta." My guess is that MOST, if not all, of the basic algorithm content of present day chess engines is the same from one engine to the next. Correct me if I'm wrong. If you buy that, then you must admit that it's unfair talking about "using bad algorithms" versus "using good algorithms." If all the chess engines are using essentially the same algorithms, then ALL chess engines will be using "good algorithms" [giving present-day algorithms the benefit of the doubt.] Differences between engines discussed here at CCC seem to me to differ in only two important ways: (1) Coding skills of the programmers [some are experienced professionals], and (2) Maturity of the programs. [Crafty mature. Russell's still unnamed.] My perception is that the basic algorithms used do not change significantly from one modern engine to the next, except as noted above. [Hope I didn't insult anybody. I didn't mean to. : ) ] Bob D. >But you can cost yourself 50 ELO or so with a >slower choice (e.g. Java, VB.NET, and other interpreted languages are simply not >going to be as fast, despite all the protests of the prognosticators) > >On the other hand, if you are more comfortable in one of these langauges, you >will probably write your best possible engine by using one of them. Yes, that does sound like the wise choice. You always want to do your best. Bob D.
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.