RE: computer-go: RE: 2d vs 1d

["Fant, Chris" <chris.fant@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I was pleasantly surprised at the increased simplicity, not increased complexity
of going to 1D, and I urge doubters to not just think about it in your head, but
try making the change in just a few functions and see what you think.


-----Original Message-----
From: Xu, Mousheng (SEA) [mailto:Mousheng.Xu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 12:20 PM
To: 'computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: computer-go: RE: 2d vs 1d


My 2 cents: 
Use a representation that closely matches the reality. The closer, the
better for thinking.

The major difficulty for go programming is its number of unique board
status. To overcome the number, you need speedy calculation. On the other
hand, you want to significantly and effectively "reduce" the number by
various algorithms. If everybody is using the same algorithms, then making
your program faster or fastest is critical, and it makes sense to write
machine code just to win the speed eventually.

>From what I have read on the list, most go programmers are using the same or
similar algorithms/approaches. It seems reasonable to focus on speed. But I
for one think it might not be the right focus. For the same
algorithms/approaches, the program could differ in ease of
programming/debugging/expanding/thinking ... I personally am very willing to
trade speed for easier software development. It seems much more hopeful to
have a better algorithm than to have a faster speed to win the race.

That's why I prefer 2D & Java. :)