Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:57:52 03/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 22, 2004 at 18:50:15, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >On March 22, 2004 at 18:16:37, martin fierz wrote: > >>of course i would also like to make an incremental update of that table, but i >>decided against such an attempt because i couldn't figure out how to do it - or >>rather, i devised a scheme for incremental updating which was so horribly >>complicated that i decided not to use it - i'd rather have a slow engine with >>little bugs and good maintainability than a fast engine with many bugs and low >>maintainability :-) > >Reminds me of: > >"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, >if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart >enough to debug it." Brian W. Kernighan > >At the moment, I don't use attack tables at all. But I want them again. And I >also only have a "build-from-scratch" routine. I also thought about incremental >updates, and it seems like a very hard job. And the bad thing is, they seem to >be especially useful at the leafs or close to the leafs. Perhaps I will start >again with using them only closer to the root, for pruning/extension decisions. > >Regards, >Dieter I update them incrementally. I can only give a hint that I simply have a function to update incrementally when I add a piece or delete a piece. I got this idea when I got the conclusion that having a function to update them based on a move is a very hard task. Uri
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.