Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 01:25:17 09/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 21, 2003 at 04:07:39, Sune Fischer wrote: >On September 21, 2003 at 03:59:04, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > > >>Another reason I don't like BB's is it is just an accident that it is a good fit >>with western chess e.g. when you complete your BB program, try converting it to >>play Shogi (9x9 board) or Chinese chess (9x10 board). BTW, I know other >>approaches have the same problem too, so I also have the same concern about >>them. > >I think that there is some contradiction in what you ask for. > >I believe the more game specific an engine is, the more potential it has. >This goes for board structure, move ordering, pruning, extensions and >evaluation, everything. But are you being more game specific than you need to be? There is no question you are right to a certain degree, but I don't agree that you should chuck portability out the window either. It is by no means clear to me that BB's are more efficient than other approaches, while those other approaches are more adaptable to other games in a efficient way. I would prefer to retain the option as much as *reasonably* possible. > >I see no reason to use a widely applicable board structure when the rest of the >engine isn't going to be game portable anyway. > >>Good luck! >Ditto! :) > >-S.
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.