Yes, there are fast little generators that would probably serve our
purposes, however I don't want to have to spend too much time checking
them out so I found one that was known to be quite fast, the Mersenne
Twister.
But what you say is now a consideration based on what I've learned about
the speed of the program. I believe the RNG speed is not a big factor
now but I have not yet given it a good profile.
I've been burned a few times by poor RNG's and I'm a little paranoid.
At some point I will check out a few of them - there are many floating
around that are fast and claim to be good.
Probably one of these would suffice:
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/1999-01/msg0014148.html
- Don
On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 18:23 -0800, steve uurtamo wrote:
> > So it's
> > quite possible that
> > this sequence dominates the call to rand().
>
> on another note, if the only reason that you
> need random numbers is to choose a number from
> a list (<82, or <362), and the depth is being
> constrained to something reasonable, then what
> you need is not a super-duper random number
> generator, but just one that is good enough
> for the purposes at hand. and there are much,
> much faster ways to get at those beasties if
> you don't need for all n-length subsets of
> generated numbers to be uniformally distributed
> as vectors in n-dim space, for instance.
>
> s.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Cheap talk?
> Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
> http://voice.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
