Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 19:02:50 11/01/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 01, 1999 at 21:08:52, leonid wrote: >On November 01, 1999 at 19:59:43, Peter Kappler wrote: > >>On November 01, 1999 at 19:50:12, leonid wrote: >> >>> >>>Hi! >>>I have the Crafty game in my Hiarcs 7.32 package. When I plyed with Crafty I was >>>impressed and puzzled. Impressed with the game that I found quick and good but >>>doubtful about the central part of the game. In what language it was really >>>written? Core part in Assembler, or 100% on C? >>> >>>Just can't retain me to not mention what really puzzled me in the game. It was >>>one idea that never went away. Why to write so good game in so slow language? To >>>use the C in this case is like to do the premeditated suicide. Like willingly >>>leaving your first place to somebody else. But maybe I rush to the conclusion. >>> >>>Leonid. >> >> >>Where did you get the idea that C is a "slow language"? >> >>Well-written C and a good compiler will produce very fast code. >> >>--Peter > >In despite of everything that could be said about the good compiler, and so >like, Assembler is the speediest one possible. If Crafty, that is already more >that good, could have just one version written in Assembler (if its core part >not done already on Assembler) it could be speeded somewhere between 3 and 8 >times. This way game will start seeing extra ply. More that enough to put it >from already good position to the best one. I can see only the portability the >reason why game was done on C. > >Leonid. How are you getting to this 3-8x estimate? Sounds extremely optimistic. --Peter
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.