Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: definition of clones: Danchess an Crafty

Author: Dann Corbit

Date: 11:16:14 02/16/04

Go up one level in this thread


On February 16, 2004 at 13:59:29, Uri Blass wrote:

>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.

If you learned by reading crafty, it would seem natural to you.
I learned bitboards from James Swafford (in fact, it is the only tutorial on
bitboards that I ever really understood well) so my code will look similar to
his, I imagine.



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.