Author: Pham Minh Tri
Date: 23:15:26 07/31/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 01, 2001 at 00:57:01, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On July 31, 2001 at 23:24:13, Pham Minh Tri wrote: > >>I know that we could use endgame tables or endgame functions for end game >>period. IMO, codes of EG function are much easier to develop, smaller and >>quicker than tables. However, I see that almost all strong programs use EGTBs, >>not those functions. Could someone explain to me why or advantages/disadvantages >>of EGTB vs EG functions? >>Many thanks in advance. >>Pham > >Tables work all the time, and functions need to be tested on a huge number of >cases. > >If you can write a function that will do it, you'd want to do this, because you >save the table access. > >The problem is that it would be ridiculously hard to write a function that will >do the work of one of the larger tables, while the smaller tables could reside >in memory. But someone must write those functions to create the tables (correct me if I am wrong). So instead of releasing tables, he could introduce functions. Other people could learn and modify them, not use only in case of tables. Is it correct? > >bruce
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.