On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Isaac Deutsch i...@gmx.ch wrote:
What I don't understand is: How do you know from just a single xor hash
if you have played a certain position/color before? Don't you somehow have
to store for each possible hash (which is 2 bytes in my example) if it has
been
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Łukasz Lew lukasz@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks. What about linked lists?
They seem to be both compact and fast to merge and detect duplicates.
Why have you abandoned them?
Lukasz
Or a Hash Set, which has constant time insert, delete, contains, and
size
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:40 AM, Daniel Burgos dbur...@gmail.com wrote:
Nice project!
I worked on this some time ago. I did not use neural networks but patterns
with feedback.
The problem with feedback is that it is difficult to know when it reaches
its final state. Usually you get
On Nov 21, 2007 3:36 PM, Petr Baudis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 09:16:48PM +0100, Raymond Wold wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 14:11 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
Experience in a language is a factor, but nobody refutes that properly
coded C is fastest (next to properly
On Nov 21, 2007 5:37 PM, Ben Lambrechts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some chess programmers have told me that this feature works much
better in Visual C++ than in gcc. It's too bad I am not willing to
program in Windows to verify it.
I have compiled GNU Go with both GCC and Visual C++ 2008.
On Nov 21, 2007 6:12 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's to say that a computer program can't code assembly better than
any human possibly could? There are a ton of tasks that computers do
thousands of times better than humans. I think it makes perfect sense
that code written in C can
On Nov 21, 2007 7:24 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raymond Wold wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 14:11 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
Experience in a language is a factor, but nobody refutes that properly
coded C is fastest (next to properly code assembly) and if performance
is your
On Nov 21, 2007 7:06 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You see to have very old-fashioned ideas about the whole programming
philosophy.You take the view that a project like go is a fixed
static task and that you must optimize the programmers time in typing
in code. And then you
Hi,
I think the reason for Ruby being so much slower is because it is an
interpreted language rather than a compiled language. So when you run
the program, a Ruby interpreter has to translate the instructions to
machine code as they are running, instead of a compiled language like
C where this
On Nov 20, 2007 1:56 PM, Nick Apperson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 20, 2007 12:48 PM, Stefan Nobis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Colin Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think the reason for Ruby being so much slower is because it is an
interpreted language rather than a compiled
10 matches
Mail list logo
