Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 01:05:33 07/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 30, 2004 at 23:22:12, Dan Honeycutt wrote: >Counterpoint: > >http://f11.parsimony.net/forum16635/messages/67157.htm > >Dan H. I don't think what I said is in disagreement with what Fabien said. I didn't say, "Attack tables are bad. Never use them." My preference is to do things on the fly unless there is a reason to do otherwise. If there is a reason to do otherwise, and attack tables are the answer to a real problem, then use them by all means. My point is that they are an optimization. There are other efficient ways of computing that data on the fly as needed. Especially for a program that is still young like Eric's, it is better to remain flexible for a while than to add some complexity without a concrete reason. At least that is my preference for my program.
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.