Author: Andreas Herrmann
Date: 16:36:18 12/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 19, 2002 at 18:48:45, Gerd Isenberg wrote: >On December 19, 2002 at 16:12:24, Andreas Herrmann wrote: > >>>Hi Andreas, >>> >>>i think Rcf2 is not incorrect here, don't considering invalid moves due to >>>pinned pieces. Better to have redundant rather than missing information. Your >>>SAN-parser should handle both Rcf2 and Rf2 correctly (but not Rff2 ;-) >>>I guess writing the move is more or less implementation depending, even if an >>>exact definition about this issue exists. >>> >>>Regards, >>>Gerd >> >>Hi Gerd, >> >>yes you are right. Holmes also accepts moves without the check "+" or "checkmate >>"#" characters or with the remark characters "!" or "?". >> >>But in the above case i have problems, because in the root i generate only legal >>moves (no pseudolegal ones). And from all possible legal moves i generates a >>SAN, a LAN and coordinate notation list to compare them with the input move. If >>the input is not a legal move (SAN, LAN or coordinate input) than i try to >>delete or add the above characters (+,#,!,?) and compare again, that's no >>problem. >> >>To produce a notation like Rcf2 i have to generate also pseudolegal moves in the >>root, because only in this case i have 2 possible rook moves to the same target >>square. I think this extra work stands in no relation to this rare case. > >Yes i see. But string compare? >If you parse a move string from left to right, character for character, i would >suggest a kind of finite state machine, where a current (initial) state and the >next character define some action (eg. tagging or shrinking the move list) and >an next state. Yes Dieter Bürßner explaned me something similar in the Winboard forum, but i think normaly a GUI has to send and export the correct SAN notation. Perhaps i will change my code after the IPCCC. But at the moment i have to find 500 or more ELO in Holmes to beat Isichess in Paderborn ;-) > >Nice to have bitboards ;-) At the moment i'm just searching for a faster solution for calculation the SEE value. But i think this would be easier and faster with bitboards. Can you give me some hints? Currenty i have changed my move ordering from SEE back to MVV/LVA because my SEE code was much too slow. > >> >>have a nice day >>Andreas > >and a nice night, >Gerd > > >> >>PS: Have you heard something from Jochen, because he stands not in the IPCCC >>participants list? So i'm fighting only with Matador for the "Rote Laterne" next >>year :-) > >No, heard nothing about Jochen. >But the number is still odd, so hopefully... >A damned strong field. Yes perhaps stronger than the last WM. Andreas
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.