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.