Author: Johan de Koning
Date: 19:14:22 11/02/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 01, 2003 at 18:32:08, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On November 01, 2003 at 05:00:48, Johan de Koning wrote:
>
>>On October 31, 2003 at 10:27:00, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On October 31, 2003 at 01:36:17, Johan de Koning wrote:
>>>
>>>>On October 30, 2003 at 09:44:48, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On October 29, 2003 at 13:39:03, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>It's like saying using 'goto' is ok in a programming environment. Where this is
>>>>>>certainly true, it should not be a policy to do so :)
>>>>>
>>>>>Eh? _every_ program you write has goto's. (aka jumps). They are not
>>>>>bad. In fact, they are _unavoidable_.
>>>>
>>>>OT1: They *are* avoidable.
>>>>Any finite algorithm that does not depend on mid-execution input (typically
>>>>time) can be written as 1 single expression. It would of course be huge and
>>>>run rather slowly without quantum computing.
>>>
>>>I don't know how you can possibly encode a loop into a complex expression,
>>>not knowing beforehand how many loop iterations will be needed...
>>
>>By expanding all possibilities.
>
>What if you don't know how many possibilities there are. IE repetition
>checking. Etc..
If *all* possibilities is finite, you know how many.
#define REP \
(zob[0] == zob[-4]) \
+ (zob[0] == zob[-6]) \
+ (zob[0] == zob[-8]) etc
#define EVAL \
+ ISWEAKWP(d4) * -10 \
+ ISWEAKBP(d5) * 10 \
+ many more
#define SCORE (REP < 3) * EVAL + (REP >= 3) * DRAWSCORE
// Johan
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.