tempguy9999

Utterly dumb question but why is tail recursion necessary in the JVM given that the compiler is better placed simply to turn recursion into a loop. TR removal should be done best at the highest level I'd think.

If you've done game AI then you're the expert, not me. I threw it in as it seemed relevant.

I dunno. Granted evaluation is key but so is branching, surely, as that is what generates new positions, and their complexity in evaluation as there are more factors to consider.

How does one 'look at "the best" 10-15 [positions]' without culling all the others first, however cheaply? I thought evaluation really was just tree searching (hence branching factor is crucial) with various weights (obviously this is traditional chess evaluation, not fancy NN stuff). I honestly am clueless.

Thanks, will follow up.

Branching increases because a piece is not constrained by other pieces. A (say) 20% branch increase will increase exponentially through the tree. Branching is probably higher earlier in the game now because there are more otherwise blocking pieces in play.

> Gaining positional advantage at cost of anything other than pawn is probably not worth it

This kind of post makes me want to give up on HN. I have actually played it (albeit a very long time ago) and you are wrong. Please try it.

But even if true, and only a pawn dies, it drastically changes the nature of the game as a white pawn is a barrier to white pieces. Make that barrier permeable and the entire game changes.

> Taking your own pieces would be sub-optimal choice in every-case other then avoiding mate

Or inflicting mate, if you're blocked from that by your own piece. Or opening an attack that otherwise blocked. Or freeing pieces otherwise useless (bishops seem to get this badly, though maybe it's just me - I was never a great player). Any major piece otherwise trapped can now escape by taking any lesser piece of its own that's fenced it in.

It totally changes the game. Position is just as important as pieces, and maybe more at different times.

> indemnified up the wazoo

Really? Are you sure boeing is, given the cost-savings that not being insured would make (I mean the mgmt is clearly penny-pinchingly stupid enough).

But even if boeing is insured, you can bet your butt the insurers will have an explicit or implicit clause that voids the insurance on 'reasonable grounds', and they will argue (correctly) that knowingly producing flawed products (when it became evident at least) matches that getout perfectly.

Even if they lose the insurers will basically move into a courtroom, sleeping bags and all, to tie things up forever. It's cheaper than paying out.

My opinion anyway.

Aside: I grew normal and F1 hybrid courgettes (american = zucchini) as a kid and can confirm the hybrids were proper little triffids compared to the pure-strain plants.

Regarding the camels, can you dig up a link, am curious. Thanks.

'garbage' because those claimed hoops were never listed, strangely enough. Even when I asked for them.

> you stress that you have "a perfectly open mind" and yet when people disagree you seem to take it extremely personally

I do not take it personally. I asked for evidence. Very little was forthcoming. I've an open mind to opinions backed up by evidence. Opinion without some basis is useless or worse. QV. anti-vaxxers, chem-trailers etc. Or do you support these people's views just because they opine so? Please answer this point specifically.

It certainly is not functional. It cannot fly in air. Like penguins, it can only 'fly' using a liquid medium. Hence the nickname. Coming soon to a river near you.

Interesting response. OK.

> 1) by relating experiences and impressions, 2) and listening to those of others with an open mind

1) may not be correct (plus my own impression that SO isn't terrible doesn't count?) and 2) I've a perfectly open mind, that's why I asked the question. I asked for evidence. That's a reasonable request.

> it can be very obnoxious to ... to keep things on track

I've experienced some of that, in a minor form. That people are having trouble showing much evidence is what I keep coming back to. It may be that you're asking higher level questions than I am.

> What I've just said is true...

That's useless to me or to this argument. I want evidence.

> few examples I have would link you to my SO account

well, OK, I can sympathise with that - to an extent.

> people might be reluctant to jump through the precise hoops you've laid out for them.

Garbage. What 'precise hoops'? I asked that those hard done by post some personal evidence, which is easily found (if it exists).