Author: Bo Persson
Date: 16:10:55 02/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 2004 at 17:47:10, Dann Corbit wrote: >On February 17, 2004 at 17:22:59, Bo Persson wrote: > >>On February 16, 2004 at 19:08:38, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>> >>>The search is more important than the evaluation, in my opinion. >> >>I think that they are both important, but that a simple alpha-beta routine is >>explained in many books on algorithms. It is also rather short and well >>researched and documented. >> >>An evaluation is much harder to start from scratch, IMO. Partly because there is >>much less solid material to read up on. > >Where have you been looking? This is quite good: >http://home.vicnet.net.au/~chess/posi.html Wow! A really thorough guy. Thanks for the link. > >Here is some more stuff I turned up in a jiffy: >http://myweb.cableone.net/christienolan/coach/evaluating.htm >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_strategy_and_tactics >http://www.markalowery.net/Chess/Tactics_Strategy/Menu/tactics_strategy_index.html I have seen some of this before. > >This is what I use: >Play Winning Chess (Winning Chess) by Yasser Seirawan, Jeremy Silman >Winning Chess Brilliancies by Yasser Seirawan (Author) >Winning Chess Endings by Yasser Seirawan (Author) >Winning Chess Openings by Yasser Seirawan (Author) >Winning Chess Strategies (Winning Chess) by Yasser Seirawan, Jeremy Silman >Winning Chess Tactics by Yasser Seirawan, Jeremy Silman (Author) > Seirawan I haven't read. Maybe I should. >>>> The alpha/beta code is also less than a page long, out of >>>>the 60k(?) lines of Crafty. >>> >>>~42000, unless you add in the EGTB stuff of Eugene, in which case it will be >>>larger: >> >>Well, I didn't actually count it but "borrowed" the number from one of Bob's >>posts. > >Did you notice that Bob's program is 6 times larger? Yes, Bob does some C things (manual inline?) that make some of his code really long. Of course I also get your hint that the smaller program cannot be a complete copy of the bigger one. :-) >> >>Bob has also numbered the bits in the "wrong" direction. >>Can't he get anything right? :-) > >If you had numbered them in the same way as Bob, because of seeing how he did >it, do you feel that would have been doing something improper? If that was the only reason, maybe. On the other hand, the two most obvious ways to number bits is left-to-right and right-to-left, so it is just circumstantial(?) evidence at best. :-) Now I know that Bob got his numbering from the Cray bit scanning instructions, while I found it equally obvious to map my enum {a1, b1, c1, ...} to the equally numbered bits on a PC processor. That just happened to be right to left. Bo Persson
This page took 0 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.