Author: Ferdinand S. Mosca
Date: 12:02:08 12/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 2000 at 12:37:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 23, 2000 at 12:26:24, Ferdinand S. Mosca wrote: > >>What's the main idea why engines have to be like this. >> >>Regards, >>Dinan > > >I don't know that "all" are like that. But it is very likely that they will >both resign _and_ play a move, which is perfectly acceptable by normal chess >rules... But it would have been a very nice and excellent gesture for a program to accept defeat without moving that move, and maybe instead of moving and then resigning, it will be made to consume enough more time if there are still time remaining (for some people to verify why it really has to resign) and then resigning thereafter. > >To not play a move would take some extra code, and it would be used only >rarely. Less code == fewer unexpected problems in the code... These codes shall have to be conquered. Sometimes I am puzzled why you have not closed the source code of Crafty. This is probably the reason why Crafty can't do better than the commercial engines. Dinan
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.