Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 15:06:41 02/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 11, 2000 at 14:44:16, Andrew Dados wrote: >It looks like I misunderstand your post and connected it to last Toms post in >that thread - his proposed list range is : pieces 0..16 then Pawns 17-whatever >etc.. >I just don't see reason to rigorously separate Pawns and Pieces at the cost of >enlarging list he proposed. So we both seem to agree on making loop ranges small >for overall speedup (and some extra effort in make/unmake, which is negligible >for overall performance anyway). At least in my program, all of my code is different for pieces and pawns. If I had pieces and pawns in the same list, everything would go slower, because I'd have to constantly check to see what kind of piece I'm working with to determine what code to run. Having a big array doesn't necessarily make your loop range larger. A few posts ago, I described how you can easily fill up the blanks in the list. If you do this, it doesn't matter how big your array is. -Tom
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.