Author: James Swafford
Date: 17:39:14 09/10/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 10, 2001 at 16:13:41, Dann Corbit wrote: >On September 10, 2001 at 15:58:29, James Swafford wrote: > >>On September 10, 2001 at 13:39:28, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>> >>>All the stuff about the GUI can be ignored, if people don't want to take the >>>time to write that stuff. All you need to do is write a move selection >>>function, which I call "think". "Think" calls "search" using iterative >>>deepening, it initializes timing, and it figures out which previously played >>>positions should be regarded as draws due to repetition. >>> >>>Once you have this, you can plug the thing into Winboard, or perhaps some other >>>existing GUI, and you are done. >> >>So we are summing up how to write a chess engine in three sentences now? :) >>I think someone asking "where do I go from here" was looking for a little >>more. > >I think Bruce was just saying: >"You can eliminate this[1] piece of the puzzle, because it's already been done >for you." > >[1] Where "this" == GUI (also a framework is included as well) I didn't mean to sound like I was attacking Bruce. I just think those that have been around a while tend to oversimplify what we take for granted. I think I read another poster say we've "forgotten how much we know." When you tell somebody who doesn't even know anything about state space searching to write a search, well, they don't know what the hell you're talking about. Even if they do, they're probably wondering if you mean breadth first, depth first, iterated, ... should it be goal driven, data driven... We have a standard template we dish out, and take for granted it's obvious and that one size fits all. Note I'm guilty of this too, so don't think I'm pointing fingers... -- James
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.