Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 10:42:25 11/08/99
Go up one level in this thread
I can assure you that you don't want to write in the assembly for IA-64. For Windows, Linux, or any other OS you can imagine. Eugene On November 08, 1999 at 13:01:51, leonid wrote: >On November 08, 1999 at 08:27:07, Bernhard Bauer wrote: > >>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. >>>> >> >>Hmm, it should be possible to write a chass playing program in a higher language >>like C in a way that is 6 to ten times slower than appropriate assembler code >>including algorithmic changes. >>If you for example write your chess program for a Cray-2 in Fortran your program >>may be mutch slower than Cal (Cray assembler language), so an extra play is >>possible. >>However, if you use a current PC and a fast compiler and a decent source code, >>you will get not much more than a speed up factor of 2, if you get anything by >>using assembler. >>Writing a chess program in assembler is pointless. >>Kind regards >>Bernhard >>>>bruce > > >If you will consider that for writing the best game you must use the best tools, >here Assembler is more that appropriate. The major difficulty now, when writing >for dominante system Windows, is one painful obstacle - almost complet absence >of literature on the subject. Secretive nature of Windows make this work even >more arduous. Impossibility to write for Windows immidiately, after buying the >Assembler (like it was possible for DOS) is the next disaster. After Assembler >you still need to spend big money for the SDK. But I hope it will be otherwise >in the future. I have read few indications saying that Linux will enter into the >play more that before with the next 64 bits Intel's chip. This could make >writing on Assembler more affordable for many amateur. And the amateurs have >better chance to reach some new ideas in the field that was abandonned by >practically minded programmers, who perceived the spot as "gold free" waste >place. > >For those who intend to write on Assembler for Windows, for now I know only one >author that ever published something about such programming. It is my admired >Barry Kauler. Name of first edition is: Windows Assembly Language and System >Programming. If somehow you know some other names and books, please say it. > >Thanks, >Leonid. > > > >>>If extra ply signify game that goes five or six time more rapidly, Assembler >>>give you just this. >>> >>>Leonid.
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.