Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:36:27 04/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 2001 at 12:22:43, Duncan Stanley wrote: >On April 19, 2001 at 11:48:08, Christophe Theron wrote: > >> >>OK, let's see if somebody can come up with a decent solution to this problem. >>Please, show me that you are not all deeply asleep and try to find creative >>solution(s). There are actually many ways to solve the problem. >> >> > >Please teecher !!! Can I answer !!! > >Modify the eval() and the search() a little by date/time to give another style. > >Can I go to the top of the class now ??? This could work. But is it worth it? And doesn't it _really_ show just how stupid the overall match idea is? IE would I _really_ want to either (a) write multiple evaluations that change based on the date; (b) write a single eval that morphs depending on the date; or (c) any variation of the above? Is that time well-spent or not? Rather than trying to circumvent stupid rules, the stupid rules should be fixed...
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.