On Nov 14, 2007 4:58 PM, William Harold Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 10:40:15AM -0500, Álvaro Begué wrote: > > Anyway, go programmers should probably not be using a whole lot of > dynamic > > memory allocation, and certainly not enough to make the performance of > > free() matter at all. > > Doesn't that depend strongly on how a program works? For example, if > you had a program which were really good at the endgame --- or, > perhaps, just a program which deeply understood sente and gote as used > in the middlegame, so that it could correctly cope with things like a > play becoming double sente as the game progresses --- it'd be natural > for it to manipulate expressions at least as complicated as > combinatorial games, because we know that combinatorial games arise in > the limit of exactly known position values. And good luck working with > combinatorial games without heap allocation. I bet you can work with combinatorial games without heap allocation, but it would take some smart tricks. To be honest, I was only thinking of the two more conventional approaches: alpha-beta search and UCT (and some unholy marriages of the two that I have in mind...). Álvaro.
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
