Author: Paul Byrne
Date: 00:19:48 01/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 09, 2004 at 16:39:28, Bob Durrett wrote: > >Recent bulletins here seem to indicate that there is some interest in variants >of classical [40 in 2 and 15 per half] chess, including blitz, bullet, and >correspondence chess. > >This begs the question: "Is it feasible to build a playing program which can >play more than one game well, INCLUDING classical chess? > >One is reminded of Fischer's idea of rearranging the pieces in the starting >position. > >Surely, software which can play chess belongs here at CCC even if it can play >other games as well. > >Bob D. My Guildenstern (G2K(C) on ICC) can play everything ICC offers -- losers, atomic, crazyhouse, shatranj, kriegspiel, etc. Strength varies from weak (in kriegspiel) to strong (in losers). In plain old chess, it is in the 2400-2500 blitz range on ICC. Mostly because it's eval is barely as advanced as TSCP's. It is just a matter of time and interest: Guildenstern tends to be better at the variants that I personally find interesting, or that have presented an interesting programming challenge. Code-wise, the variants share quite a bit. Here it is mostly a matter of how obsessive you are about every 1% of nps, and every +1 rating increase. The code is C++, so there are a number of virtual functions. Even things like the evaluation can be merged somewhat. I have a base eval that does piece values, piece square tables, computes pawn structure, etc. Then each variant calls on that, and adds any variant-specific knowledge. That said, I am sure for the more variant of variants, with different board size and such, there will be less shared code. -paul
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.