Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 08:20:55 04/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 2002 at 10:55:30, Russell Reagan wrote: >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 Yes, that's what I meant, when you decide on the algorithm and structures, do it also with respect to speed. Do give the issue _some_ attention, or else you certainly will be paying that factor of 10-100 in penalty, and rewriting the whole shamole later is not that fun either. I guess it takes experience to know beforehand exactly what is worth optimizing and what is not. -S.
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.