Author: leonid
Date: 19:08:44 11/01/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 01, 1999 at 22:02:50, Peter Kappler wrote: >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 I remember that one small program I wrote in Assembler and later in Pascal. Pascal version was around 10 times bigger and as much slow. Leonid.
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.