Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 23:37:02 07/31/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 01, 2001 at 02:15:26, Pham Minh Tri wrote: >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? A simple function creates the table, but it takes like a day to run. You'd want something that would return a good result in less than the time of a disk access. bruce > >> >>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.