Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 09:41:18 07/02/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 02, 2003 at 12:31:06, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On July 02, 2003 at 09:50:50, Andrei Fortuna wrote: > >>On July 01, 2003 at 22:56:58, Dan Andersson wrote: >> >>> I'm partial to PRECCX. It might not be developed any more. So it's stable ;) >>>But it is a fully functional *very* extended BNF. Its main selling point is >>>inherited and synthetic attributes. And meta-production rules are allowed. One >>>neat thing is that you could actually do almost everything in it. A-B and >>>Q-search, eval, extensions and pruning if you put in an effort to do it. >>>http://www.afm.sbu.ac.uk/precc/ >> >>Very interesting ! Looks like there is lots of terrain for me to investigate in >>the land of grammars/compilers :) It is a nice warm feeling ! >> >>To be truthful writing a meta-language looks like a great project :) It is kind >>of a not-so-explored area where I could add my personal contribution to chess >>programming (of course there are CHEVAL written by J.C.Weil and CHE/CHE++ from >>Nimzo which are very similar to what I want to do, but not quite the same and >>anyway they were pretty much closed source). >> >>Andrei > >Why not learn prolog. I have a very expensive book here which you can get for a >few $ from me about it. I want to get rid of it ASAP :) One of the best Prolog books (free): http://www.coli.uni-sb.de/~kris/prolog-course/ I think that Scheme will be more appropriate than Prolog, but who the hell uses those prehistoric languages anyway (except a few university courses)?
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.