Author: William H Rogers
Date: 11:33:53 02/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 12, 2004 at 14:03:49, Dann Corbit wrote: >If you understood how the algorithm worked, you would be standing in admiration >of it (as opposed to worship). Making light of the algorithm is silly to me. >The current alternative is minimax. Hi Dan I take a little exception with the statement that minimax is an alternative to alpha-beta. They are the same thing just expressed a little differently. As an example here are some of the steps I went through when I first started to write my chess program. First I designed the board, easy part. Then I started working on the move generator. I designed and wrote a subroutine for moving pawns. Next I did the same thing for the knights, then bishops, then rooks and by the time I started to write the code for the queen I realized that last three subs were all the same with just minor changes in the directions and number of moves that could be made in each direction. I thought about it and came up with indices. One subroutine used for all the major pieces with pointers to the direction and steps indices. Tremendous savings in coding. Basically what I am saying is the the minimax does not do anything any differently than alpha-beta, it is just a more efficent and smaller coding that achieves the same results. Take one program and only make changes to which one that you want to use and I think that you will not see any difference in the evals or the moves chosen as best. Respectfully Bill
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.