Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 20:05:35 11/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 2002 at 20:32:27, Joel wrote: >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 Hi Joel, Not sure how long you've been a CCC member, but the main participants in this debate have a long history of disagreeing on just about everything. Oh, and you should also know that one of them is mildly insane. Hope this little bit of context helps. Good luck with your new program! -Peter
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.