Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:22:22 09/26/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 26, 1999 at 14:08:00, Alessandro Damiani wrote: > >Yes, as it is always the case one has to know all properties of the objects one >handles with. > >I detect passed pawns incrementally, with a few ANDs. This could only be >possible because of BitBoards. > >Alessandro > I don't do anything incrementally at present... that is an efficiency issue. I have ignored incremental eval because it locks you into a box, since the code is mixed between Evaluate() and the Make()/UnMake() code. I found that in Cray Blitz, (which did a lot of incremental work) I found myself stuck in a box that served as a limiting factor. At present I am far more interested in what is good and what is bad in the evaluation code. Once I am satisfied with something, I will go back and look at it from an efficiency point of view. Right now I am looking at it with a "design with change in mind" sort of software engineering approach.. make it easy to add things whether they are efficient or not. If they are good, then make them efficient. IE it is very possible that a lot of my pawn stuff could be done incrementally and would maybe faster. But once I go to that much work, I would likely tend to keep using that code even if something better came long idea-wise. I'm not ready to commit to most of what I do, until I am sure it works as I want..
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.