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.