Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 18:57:59 11/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 2002 at 19:23:36, David Rasmussen wrote: >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 Hmm. My gut feeling is that a well-written main search makes a distinct q-search routine of no benefit, and that separate q-search routines are harmful to program development because they allow the developer to be lazy when implementing the main search. Dave
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.