Author: Colin Frayn
Date: 09:16:28 03/31/00
Go up one level in this thread
>You might be surprised at the knowledge even in tiny chess engines. Look at >the very clever eval code in Phalanx, for instance. Substitute 'incomprehensible' :) I'm sure it's very clever, but it would take hours of work to find out what he's doing. I tried to put quite a bit of chess knowledge into ColChess, but it's not exactly the greatest analysis function ever written. Hopefully it's comprehensible though as I used 8*8 arrays to store the pieces rather than bitboards or any of that nonsense :)) (I hope Bob Hyatt isn't reading this) I think that improving the static eval function would improve the performance of my program a lot more than slghtly tweaking its tactical speed. I could convincingly argue with anyone who says otherwise. Having said that... it's important to not lag _too_ far behind in sheer search depth simply because you'll get outplayed with tactics every time. >At any rate, I think Christophe Theron said it best -- the only real difference >between commercial chess programs and amateur chess programs is effort. ...and the added incentive that the speed of your program determines the size of your paycheck... Cheers, Col
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.