Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 14:56:02 08/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 11, 2000 at 15:49:57, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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 Right, Lenoid doesn't have a reasonable q-search. I believe that check extensions are also necessary to avoid horrible horizon-effect moves. -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.