Author: James Swafford
Date: 08:15:11 09/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 19, 2002 at 08:07:44, Severi Salminen wrote: >>If that's in fact the de facto standard I'd be inclined to switch. >>I don't know if that's the case, though (no offense), as I haven't >>looked at anybody else's source in quite a while. (Not that there's >>anything wrong with that.) >> >>Are you sure your definition is "standard"? > >Well, it is the most logical way if you think of it. Maybe a year ago I also had >a different scheme (qnodes++ at the beginning of qsearch()) and back then >everyone was doing different. So "my" definition is at least closer to the truth >:) You are right... it makes more sense. I think I will switch soon. :) > >If you implement it, just make sure where to inc nodes and where qnodes so you >won't get any overlapping. Good tip.. thanks. -- James > >Severi
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.