Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 05:49:52 11/21/04
Go up one level in this thread
Rather than have a big flame war here, (I'm saving my flamewar comments for the arena thread :), I think I need to point out some things. First of all, if you are going to implement someone else's algorithm, I agree: it is mainly a matter of technique and debugging. It is still a challenging debugging problem, but sure, I agree: it is a _programming_ problem rather than a _computer science_ problem. Secondly, this whole business gets much less complicated when you worry about two processors only. All the fancy conditions occur when you have several processors. If you design for two processors, you have a simple master/slave relationship and everything works out. Third, I strongly agree with Bob on the issue of design. With simple stuff you can usually play it by ear, but I think its pretty important to do a reasonable amount of thinking for the complicated stuff. This doesn't mean I advocate lots of UML and documentation, but that I think you should sit down a bit and _think_. I know that I discarded 4 or 5 designs without writing a single line of code, after I realized they were going to suck :) Anyway, I think we will see a parallel version of DanChess in the near future (hopefully at CCT!). Good luck! anthony
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.