Author: leonid
Date: 12:50:44 11/08/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 1999 at 13:42:25, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >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 Would like and will do this. Only if it will done for Windows, would like to have more literature that could help me in this aspect. Leonid. > >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.