Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 18:24:05 10/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 23, 2003 at 20:34:46, Pham Hong Nguyen wrote: >Russell, that is so interesting. However, I don't believe much about TSCP's >results because this program is quite small and simple, comparing with so-so >chess engines. Some results of TSCP differ from ones of others. For example, >TSCP can run faster on some Intel CPU than equivalent AMD. Thus, do you have >comparations between compilers for other engines, say Crafty? I'm not exactly an expert on compiler settings, and given the complexity of Crafty, I wouldn't trust my results of compiler comparisons using it. There are so many different options in Crafty, and a ton of compiler settings (especially for gcc), and I have no clue what settings would generate the fastest executable. I know there's a make file, but I've rarely had good success using that without complications. It's hard to find a program that is portable, which will compile cleanly in both VC6 and gcc, and which also is a strong and efficient program. So many use assembly or Windows specific code. TSCP was an obvious choice that would compile in both gcc and VC6 without modification, but, like you said, it's not exactly the most efficient program.
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.