Author: Uri Blass
Date: 21:04:41 12/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2002 at 20:35:17, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On November 29, 2002 at 11:52:32, David Rasmussen wrote: > >>On November 29, 2002 at 04:08:47, Dave Gomboc wrote: >> >>> >>>It's not a matter of how you divvy up the code, it's a matter of how you think >>>about your code. >>> >> >>Exactly. It's a much better design that have separate functions in this case, as >>they're solving different problems. It is cleaner conceptually. >> >>/David > >That is where we disagree. I believe it is sufficient to solve one problem, if >you solve the right one. > >Dave Maybe it is better to write 60 different functions for every depth because the rules for order of moves or for pruning and extensions should be different at every depth. If 2 functions encourage programmers to be lazy based on previous post of you then what is your opinion about 60 functions? I have only 2 but I do not consider the number of function as important because you can use different search rules at different rules with the same function. The qsearch is mainly selective and the search is mainly brute force and it is the reason that I use 2 functions. I have not the same pruning rules in all plies not in the search and not in the qsearch. Uri
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.