Author: Daniel Clausen
Date: 09:54:26 09/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 22, 2003 at 12:14:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: [snip] >The transposition table is a natural. The opening book. The endgame tables. >The repetition history. The killer move list. While I agree with these suggestions for classes, I think such classes alone don't really make an engine OO. What you basically mention so far is to replace "struct XYZ" with "class XYZ" and convert the functions which work with these structs closely (and typically take a pointer/reference to an object of XYZ) to member functions of the respective class. If you do that, I'd call this a C++ engine but in the sense of a better C. I wouldn't call it an OO-engine though. The design of the program is exactly the same. >The only thing to avoid is constantly creating and destroying things. If you >avoid that, c++ is just as good as C. Note that Eugene's endgame probe code >is written in c++ with _no_ speed penalty. I didn't read that code carefully (it's not that easy to read, to say it this way ;) but AFAIK I'd call that "better C", not OO. Sargon
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.