Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: definition of clones: Danchess an Crafty

Author: Dann Corbit

Date: 10:51:35 02/16/04

Go up one level in this thread


On February 16, 2004 at 13:38:50, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On February 16, 2004 at 13:22:56, Uri Blass wrote:
[snip]
>>It is important to make things clear because Dann Corbit in the winboard forum
>>even suggested that it may be a bad idea to read crafty's code
>
>This doesn't make much sense to me.  I can't imagine a better way to learn about
>the insides of a chess program than to look at the source, particularly when the
>program is written like Crafty with about a 50-50 ratio of instructions to
>comments.  If borrowing ideas was bad, then he might be right.  But you can look
>at a program without borrowing source...

If you are not allowed to apply what you learn, what is the purpose of reading
it?




This page took 0.01 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.