Author: Dan Newman
Date: 13:21:50 04/30/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 30, 2000 at 14:15:23, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On April 29, 2000 at 16:42:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>I think most do that already. IE I first probe the hash table, then I probe >>the EGTB, then I call eval which first checks for clear draws. If it finds >>one it returns. If it finds no pawns it does a special mate evaluation. If >>it finds pawns, it does a normal lazy evaluation. > >Sure, I also think most programs do stuff like that. What I'm trying to bring >attention to is (my supposed) explicit structural feature of Bruce's code re: >his use of handlers. I suspect that most programs simply have this kind of >logic hardwired in procedural fashion instead, e.g. if (blah) call sub else if >(blah)..., which would be significantly less malleable over some fixed period of >time. > >Dave Interesting. I've thought about doing stuff like this, but haven't done it much because of all that extra function call overhead. I have played around with this sort of thing in other parts of the code to avoid doing if-tests though. With a scheme like this you could reconfigure the search code as you search (or at least at the root)... -Dan.
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.