Author: Ulrich Tuerke
Date: 07:39:01 04/11/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 10, 2004 at 10:29:51, Dan Andersson wrote:
> There are reasons for using recursion. One of them is that the generated code
>tends to be smaller. And that could trumph any gains made from reducing the
>data.
> Another one is decreasing complexity. And the ability to use induction to prove
>an algorithm.
Absolutely. A non-recursive chess program is far less readable.
In principle one would have to build one's own stack using arrays.
I can't see any advantage of being non-recursive.
Anyway, in one of the BYTE volumes, a program source made by Slate & Atkin had
been published:
http://www.devili.iki.fi/library/issue/240.en.html
Creating a Chess Player, Part 2: Chess 0.5 162
Part 1 of this series ("Creating a Chess Player", October 1978 BYT page 182) was
an essay on human and computer skill. This month and next we present Chess 0.5,
a program written in Pascal by Larry Atkin, who is coauthor with David Slate of
the world champioship computer chess program Chess 4.6. This program is readily
adaptable to presonal computers having Pascal systems such as the UCSD Pascal
project software. Part 4 of the series will conclude with some thoughts about
computer chess strategy.
Peter W. Frey, Larry R. Atkin
Uli
> I often use tail recursion as a goto with values. It usually doesn't incur any
>overhead. And increases branch prediction for some types of code like parsers,
>regexp and interpreters.
>
>MvH Dan Andersson
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.