Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 09:54:47 11/08/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 1999 at 06:02:53, leonid wrote: >On November 08, 1999 at 04:40:26, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On November 07, 1999 at 22:58:55, leonid wrote: >> >>>If you write your chess program only for fun, use every language that you could >>>like. But if you expect that "others" should observe your happiness, use >>>Assembler. Only this language will give your game extra ply over others. It will >>>naturally induce into your game some extra glamoring brillances able to capture >>>the attention of human eyes. And since the human is a social animal that crave >>>for attention, Assembler is the only natural language for him to express >>>himself. >> >>Assembler won't yield an extra ply. >> >>bruce > >If extra ply signify game that goes five or six time more rapidly, Assembler >give you just this. > >Leonid. I don't know what compiler you are talking about, but this isn't true for anything I have seen. I've looked a the compiler generated code in the case of my own program, and some of the functions are in my opinion unimprovable. In other cases the improvement is so slight as to be not worth the trouble. When I ran 16-bit Windows I had some assembly code and it helped, because the compiler was doing dumb things with segment registers. But there are no segment registers these days, it's all flat model, and the compiler has an easier time. It also seems to try very hard to use multiple pipes properly, and to avoid register stalls. It is possible that I could go faster if I designed specifically for assembly code, but I still think that 5-6X is way beyond anything I could hope to accomplish. bruce
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.