Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:49:57 08/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 11, 2000 at 13:48:22, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >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 I wouldn't argue with that statement at all. Not having any q-search will lead to many bogus PVs, obviously. But once you have a reasonable search, a reason- able q-search, and a simple eval(), you are set to test and debug for a long while, trying to improve things. Other "enhancements" tend to get in the way early. IE null move, and hashing, and lazy eval, and extensions, and futility pruning in the q-search. All can also contribute greatly to nonsense moves.
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.