Author: Tord Romstad
Date: 06:54:57 08/17/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 17, 2005 at 08:56:40, Steve Maughan wrote: >Tord, > >>Glaurung probably won't improve for a while, though. Right now I'm having a >>little break from chess programming, and when I start again in a month or >>two I will do a complete rewrite. I don't expect the next version to be ready >>before the end of the year. > >I myself also have the annoying habit of wanting to rewrite my engine. Can I >ask the reason? From what I've seen of Glaurung's code (which is not that much) >it seems to be compact and well written. So what's the motivation for the >rewrite? Glaurung's source code has grown too big, complicated and messy and is beginning to show the first signs of code rot. I want to have something smaller, simpler and more flexible, and to correct some unfortunate design decisions. At the same time, I plan to make the program more easily parallellisable (is that a word?). It is probably true that Glaurung is still cleaner and more compact than most other chess engines, but compared to other programmers I am very bad at coping with big and complex code in low-level languages. I expect that I will have to do a complete rewrite about once per year. >Will you keep the same data structure? For the most part, yes. Most of the code will also be rather similar. I expect the end result to look sufficiently similar to Glaurung that it would have been labeled as a "Glaurung clone" if it were written by somebody else than me. Tord
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.