Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 10:48:22 08/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 11, 2000 at 09:09:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 10, 2000 at 23:20:42, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On August 10, 2000 at 21:46:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>Either way will work. your way is the way suggested by software engineering. >>>And your way will have less debugging. Your way will make it hard to evaluate >> >>If your program has no check extension and no quiescence search, how is it any >>easier to debug? >> >>-Tom > > >It has less code to go wrong. I started off writing my move generator and >nothing else. I debugged that until I was sure it worked. That is far >easier than writing the whole thing, then debugging several thousand lines >of new and untested code, all at one time. > >This is why the top-down approach became so popular years ago... Yes, I also wrote my move generator before anything else. But Lenoid has written an entire chess program. He simply refuses to put in extensions or qsearch. I think such a program would be harder to debug. Does it play God-awful moves because it has no qsearch, or is it due to some bug? Hard to tell. -Tom
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.