Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 20:09:32 07/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2002 at 20:45:58, Arshad F. Syed wrote: >Before I start on my chess program, I want to get an idea of what is involved in >creating a top-notch program (preferably one that tops the SSDF list!!). As trollish as your post sounds, I'll assume you're serious. The most important thing is that you are willing to work harder than anyone else in the computer chess community. The people at the top of the SSDF list have probably thought up a plethera of ideas, took the time to implement them all, and then found one or two that worked out of the hundreds or thousands of ideas they tried, and then they start all over. In other words, it's probably going to be like looking for a needle in a field of hay stacks. If you're willing to work that hard, then next comes your ability to program like a professional. By that I mean your ability to create a program where you can easily and efficiently change things without you having to rewrite the entire engine. The professionals and Dr. Hyatt pretty much know which approaches they think are the best, so they can afford to be a little less "flexible" in their design. If you're starting out, having a flexible program that allows you to change parts easily without any headache will save you more time than any other decision you make. I learned this the hard way. >I have >some questions: > >1.) Is it possible to deliver a commercial quality chess program without any >chess knowledge of what constitutes a 'strong position' in a chess players >view? No. You could make a master level program perhaps with using some material values and piece-square tables which wouldn't require you to have much chess knowledge, but not on the level with the top commercial engines. >2.) I don't want my program to be very 'machine-esque' or mechanical. I, >therefore, don't want my opening books to stretch to more than 10 moves. Will >this in anyway impact the level of play? That doesn't make any sense. The opening book is the most human part of the program, and you want to make your machine less mechanical by reducing the human element? One of the primary strengths of a commercial program is it's opening book. That alone might be enough to take a top amateur engine and make it commercial strength. I don't mean to be negative, but if you don't have any chess knowledge, and you're making decisions like only having a 10 move opening book, I don't think you're engine is going to make it onto the SSDF list, much less to the top. I remember when I first decided I was writing a chess engine. I thought that in a few weeks or maybe months if it took a long time I would have a chess playing program that could beat any of the other chess programs out there. I had no idea about what was involved in writing a chess engine, and so I've spent the last several years learning. The best advice I can give you is to just get it into your head that your chess engine will be your life project, because it's going to take many years to create a very strong engine, if you're talented enough and have the work ethic to cut it. In any case, good luck. Russell
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.