On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 7:54 AM, David Doshay<[email protected]> wrote: > My personal opinion is that way too much effort is put into optimizations > that used to be very important when memory was small, but now is nice but > not really needed. My bias is that efficiency is a good thing as long as it > does not get in the way of easily understandable code, particularly for a > new engine. I am not debating (and do not want to start a flame war on the > subject) that good data structures lead to good programs, but I think that > trying to wring every last bit out of the stored data is silly when machines > these days have up to 8 GB of RAM. >
I'm not sure I was the first to come up with the 20*21+1 idea. I suppose it's possible. But the reason for me was actually more a practical one than an optimization, even in the early days. When viewing the values in a debugger in multiples of 19 or 21 is mentally a lot more work than when it's multiples of 20. For example 356 makes x=16 y=17 which is much easier (for math-challenged people like me) to see than when the coordinate is represented by 339 or 373 because I only learned the multiplication tables until 10 in elementary school. Mark _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
