Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 20:01:23 10/15/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 15, 1999 at 19:31:20, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On October 15, 1999 at 18:50:21, Jeremiah Penery wrote: > >>On October 15, 1999 at 18:24:57, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >> >>>On October 14, 1999 at 18:00:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On October 14, 1999 at 10:02:18, stefan wrote: >>>> >>>>>What do you think sort (and if yes how) or search move by move? >>>>> >>>>>Thank you >>>>>stefan plenkner >>>> >>>> >>>>The only 'sort' I do is to sort captures based on expected material gain/loss >>>>(SEE score). There are usually a very few, so I use a simple bubble sort >>>>which works well. >>> >>>Perhaps you meant to say "insertion sort" instead of "bubble sort". Sedgewick >>>comment about bubble sort: "It is not clear why this method is so often taught, >>>since insertion sort seems simpler and more efficinet by almost any measure. The >>>inner loop of bubble sort has about twice as many instructions as either >>>insertion sort or selection sort." >> >>He does do a bubble sort. :) It says in the code something like: "Don't >>disdain the lowly bubble sort here. :) Experimentation with other algorithms has >>always been slightly slower." >> >>Jeremiah :) > >If he is using bubble sort, then there is a simple enhancement he can make >called shaker sort. A bubble sort where the inner alternately reverses >direction. This enhancement can be achieved 'for free'. There is no reason to be >using bubble sort. My friends and I called this the "double bubble sort" when we were kids. Hmm, I guess I still do. :-) Dave
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.