Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: definition of clones: Danchess an Crafty

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 11:18:19 02/16/04

Go up one level in this thread


On February 16, 2004 at 14:16:14, Dann Corbit wrote:

>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.

It seems natural to me to have a1=0 h1=7 h8=63 in bitboards and I understood
that Crafty does not do it.

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.