Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:38:20 06/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 10, 2004 at 11:37:09, Tord Romstad wrote: >On June 10, 2004 at 11:00:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 10, 2004 at 04:33:21, Tord Romstad wrote: >> >>>On June 09, 2004 at 16:19:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>Parsing SAN is _not_ hard. >>> >>>Perhaps not extremely hard, but still an unnecessary complication, IMHO. >>>A format like "g1f3" or "Ng1f3" is closer to the internal representation >>>of moves in almost all chess-related programs. I find it hard to believe >>>that there is a big number of programs which actually stores only the >>>type of piece and the destination square, and adds more information only >>>when it's necessary to avoid ambiguity. >>> >>>By using SAN, you make life more difficult for the programs which produce >>>the files as well as for programs which read the files. The programs which >>>produce the files are forced to convert it's internal from-to representation >>>of moves to SAN, and the programs which read the files have to reverse the >>>process. This seems really silly to me. >> >>Notice that I said "I like and prefer SAN myself". >> >>However I proposed that if we do a new standard, we pick _one_ move >>representation and stick with it, and provide conversion utilities to convert it >>to other representations (including san). > >Here, I agree 100%. It is extremely annoying that the xboard protocol, >for instance, does not require some specific move representation. The >PV in the xboard protocol is essentially just a string, and the GUI has >to *guess* the move format if it wants to do anything more complicated than >just displaying the raw string. > >I don't think using SAN is the best solution, but I agree that the most >important thing is to agree about a single representation. > >>>SAN is only a good idea when the information is presented to the user. >>>It has no place in file formats which are not designed to be read by >>>humans, nor in engine communication protocols. >> >> >>I don't disagree, except that there are always going to be humans that insist on >>reading the raw data.. > >Yes, but I don't think making life easier for those who insist on reading >the raw data should be a guideline when designing the standards. > >>>>There is public code to do that in the epd kit as well as inside Crafty >>>>itself. >>> >>>I am not sure what the "epd kit" is, but if you are referring to the >>>epd*.c and epd*.h files by Steven J. Edwards which are included in the >>>Crafty source code, they are unusable to the majority of chess programmers >>>because of their gigantic size. The epd*.* files alone are bigger than >>>the complete source code of my engine, despite the fact that my code has >>>grown very bloated. >> >> >>What does their "size" have to do with being usable? They don't add megabytes >>to the executable... > >Not megabytes, but it wouldn't surprise me if they add 100 KB, which is >already far more than I can accept for something which does not increase >playing strength. > >>Ever looked at the _size_ of the shared C libraries you are including without >>knowing??? Hint: They _are_ megabytes in size. > >Yes, but the point is that they are _shared_. Think carefully. _you_ are the only application that is running. Shared is meaningless in the context of computer chess programs. When I am playing chess, _nothing_ else runs on my box, except for necessary daemon processes. I doubt they use the math library, for example, or any of the myriad of other libs that a chess engine will attach... So your code is _way_ bigger than you expect. And then there is the operating system that sits right in memory with you. Several times bigger than your chess program code... The size of the epd stuff is really completely unimportant. > If I were forced to always >deliver statically linked executables, I would have tried to economize my >library usage as much as possible. > >Tord Sometimes static is necessary for portability between different versions of the same O/S. You have 100x as much lib stuff as epd stuff in that case.
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.