Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 07:55:30 04/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 2002 at 05:03:42, Sune Fischer wrote: >In contrary to what many people suggests, I think one should not completely >ignore optimizations. If you give it no thought at all, you quickly stand to >lose a factor of 10 or worse. >Things like generating the entire movelist and then sorting the entire movelist >by some simple O(N^2) algorithm, and doing all this with a huge array being >allocated on the fly is real bad, it will cost a lot of performance. I think this is more under the heading of choosing better algorithms like other people have suggested rather than minute decisions of whether to pass pointers to all of your functions or whether to use global data. You're right though, choosing the best algorithms and making wise decisions from the beginning will get you a good efficient program. I think when people talk about optimization they mean taking a good efficient program and tweaking existing sections a bit to squeeze out a little more speed. For example, using a piece array to avoid having to loop through 64 squares (instead using 16 or fewer iterations vs. 64 iterations) isn't really considered an optimization as much as it is simply a good idea, or maybe a "correct" or "not wrong" idea. Russell
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.