Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: definition of clones: Danchess an Crafty

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 10:59:29 02/16/04

Go up one level in this thread


On February 16, 2004 at 13:51:35, Dann Corbit wrote:

>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?

If you already started from a different data structure than Crafty then applying
what you learn will usually result in a different code.

If you start from almost the same structure of crafty then you are in a problem
and Bob explain that he used the the order of bits in bitboards in Crafty is not
natural to use for a new bitboard program.

Uri




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.