Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 16:23:36 11/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 2002 at 17:36:22, Dave Gomboc wrote: > > >I posted a corrected version of my post where I included a half-smiley. This is >because the comment is half a joke, but also half serious. > >Philisophically, the main search already needs to deal with how best to search >at huge depths vs. how best to search at tiny depths. Some search code ignores >the difference; it is these cases that probably depend on the presence of a >separate q-search the most. Search code which is designed to be adaptive >according to search depth should not have trouble encompassing q-search as well. > >Practically, it may still be clearer to express what needs to be done near the >tips with a specific q-search routine. > That was sort of my points also: In principle, there aren't any differences between normal search and qsearch. Qsearch can be "expressed" within the framework of normal search with pruning/extensions. My other point was, that design matters a lot, and that what might be "semantically" equivalent, might not be when it comes to implementing, and/or expressing what to be done. A separate qsearch function is a very good idea, designwise, IMO. /David
This page took 0.01 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.