Author: Joel
Date: 17:32:27 11/19/02
Hey all, I find the inordinate amount of discussion in regards to the underlying data structures quite amusing. Isn't the fact that there are strong programs based on a variety of difference approaches good enough to 'prove' that the particular approaches have merit? Hell, when I first started, I looked into each method somewhat, decided to go with an array based method, then after that learning experience, decided to change to bitboards (I think it is elegant) for a more serious attempt at making a reasonable engine. My reasoning for this decision was that if other strong coders could make a strong chess AI using either approach, then well, I may as well chose the one which I like the best. (and hope that I am a good coder!) What confuses me is that a lot of people here get very involved in these data structure zealotry discussions! I read numbers such as a 'factor of 2' being thrown around here and there, but don't fully understand the importance? Isn't the branching factor in chess suffiently high enough for these factors to make only a small difference to the programs chess playing performance? Keep in mind my perspective is slanted - my first serious attempt at a chess engine is not complete (need a few more weeks), and my only other experience with chess programming is a quick engine knocked up in a month, plus lots of on paper design for my current one. Regards, Joel
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.