Author: Dan Honeycutt
Date: 08:16:20 07/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2004 at 04:05:33, Russell Reagan wrote: >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. I agree with most of what you say. But I think in a young program it is also OK to include infrastructure for the future even if it doesn't buy you anything today. Dan H.
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.