Author: Tord Romstad
Date: 02:52:30 07/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 08, 2004 at 20:43:57, Dann Corbit wrote: >34 7 SlowChess 2.89b 2467 57 136 (this version is not open >source and is bitboard) I thought SlowChess was a non-bitboarder? >Phalanx is definitely the strongest from these lists. But the code... >Not a pretty sight. Could you please explain why? I have never seen any open source chess engine which is more readable and easy to understand than Phalanx (with the possible exception of toy engines like MSCP, TSCP and Faile). I suppose this has a lot to do with experience. Phalanx might be ugly in the eyes of experienced C programmers, but to C newbies like me the clear and straightforward code is a pleasure to read. I think I could learn a lot by knowing why experts like you consider Phalanx to be badly written. >I would look at (in this order): >1. TCSP (but don't use this -- just to get an overview) >2. Fruit (strongest, and beautifully written) >3. ExChess (nicely written) >4. Scidlet (nicely written) My suggestion: 1. Faile 2. Phalanx 3. Fruit 4. GnuChess 4 Tord
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.