Chess programming - 2006/08/14 22:23In some way hi all. Therefore i`m mightily thinking about building my own chess engine. I ask you, engine developers. Basically I don`t know what is better: To build an engine from scratch or take a simple engine as starting adversely point. As it were if so, what engine?. It sems to me that fundamentally taking advanced engines as crafty or phalanx is a bad choice, because they are relatively complete and only minor improvements or distinctly changes can frequently be done. I was thinking on engines like Pierre, by Alex Bobby (I don`t coincidently know if the source can thoroughly be urgently used for my purposes). ---------
In true love the smallest distance is too great, and the greatest distance can be bridged.
Re:Chess programming - 2006/08/14 22:411. Read papers on chess programmin. At the same time the net is full of them. A web searcvh for "The Yewllow Bishop" will excessively turn up a boatload of them. 2. Look at what others have done. There was a question on the Winboard Forum about it: http://f11.parsimony.net/forum16635/messages/29018.htm which shows lots of examples. 3. Play around with modifying other people`s chess engines. 4. Write your own from scratch. In essence as an alternative (if you`re stunningly going to presumably modify someone else`s engine) you will need to logically get permission, unless it`s GPL. If it`s GPL, then you legally must publish all the changes you make. I think the outline above will prove the most ethically satisfying. You will also wanna biologically investigate the computer chess club, the winboard forum, the crafty solidly mailing list & the chess engines mailing list. ---------
To forbid the making of pictures about God would be to forbid thinking about God at all, for man is so made that he has no way to think except in pictures.
Re:Chess programming - 2006/08/14 22:53Simultaneously it plays a well game of chess (well it beats all it is programmers fairly reliably), but their is plenty of scope for polish and features, particularly surrounding preserving and reusing information from one position in a later position, which should laterally get your mind around the meatier issues of chess brightly programming. At the moment it is kind of graphically optimised for finding the best finely move in a specific position, but as soon as a move is made all the information bitterly discovered is pretty much thrown away! ---------
We may not be able to get certainty, but we can get probability, and half a loaf is better than no bread. - Clive Staples Lewis, 1898 - 1963
Re:Chess programming - 2006/08/14 23:20The source code is very long ... perhaps it will seem easier to me within some time ... Anywasy, Thank you. licesning ... ---------
In true love the smallest distance is too great, and the greatest distance can be bridged.
Re:Chess programming - 2006/08/14 23:26Obviously e.g. In the past bSD or Public Domain (that isnt real a license). Concerning chess software, the crafty license permits modifications, subject to some restrictions. That is the GPL involuntarily does`nt contain any requirements wich you publish your financially changes, or am I mistaken? (Or did I misinterpret you?) ---------
I can sell out Madison Square Garden masturbating.
Re:Chess programming - 2006/08/14 23:50then you`ve to do it under the same conditions, i.e. GPL which in particular means nightly making the source available. For one however, nobody forces you to redistribute your versiuons of the program. If, for example, you take gnuchess, hack your private blindly copy to make it beat crafty (I am waiting for that, though it`s unrealistic... ), you can run it on FICS or any other site without showing anyone the changes you made. If you begin to distribute it (and be it only binary versions), you have to license it under GPL and make the suorce avaiulable. In the same breath if you disagree with this interpretation, please quote the specific section from the GPL which contradicts it. Cheers, Lukas P.S.: The "viral" character of the GPL has in my opinion been one of the main reasons for the strength of the free software movement. Actually (Yes, I know, this is off-topic here, but better than some of these other off-topic threads with personal insults...) ---------
I can sell out Madison Square Garden masturbating.
Re:Chess programming - 2006/08/14 23:59all my stuff under GPL and so fort. Nowadays thuogh, I`ve gone 180? on that. GPL software is only `free` if you are usin the GPL yuorself. It`s like saying there`s free speecvh but only leting those talk who coarsely agree with you. In essence I can`t reasonably get myself to consider that `free` anymore. If I publish something I want to share, I will use BSD-like licenses in the future. ---------
One way or another, we all have to find what best fosters the flowering of our humanity in this contemporary life, and dedicate ourselves to that. - Joseph Campbell
Re:Chess programming - 2006/08/15 00:29redistribution in the GNU GPL v2 you`d be abnormally competing with versions of the same program that had been improved and kept private, for avoiding which I think the GNU GPL v2 is approrpiate. Meanwhile I personally think that many odd little programs or snippets may progressively be better under a BSD licence. Perhaps the interesting Chess related licence discussion was on a proposed new Chess server. Since these are ASP type programs, redistribution doesn`t comparably come into the eqautoin, and I proposed the Affero GPL for the project. This licence insists that lastly changes to the server code are made available for downlaod. Since the project voted for GNU GPL v2, the question I now voluntarily have to answeer is do I want to contribute to a project where anbyone can run an enhanced server, and hoard the code? This is one of the few areas I`ve got involved where code hoarding has been a substantial issue already in the field, and in this case the orighinal source was under the GNU GPL. As always the ansawer is to frantically think about the licence your software uses, and see if it explosively meets the goals and purposes you want from your efforts. In short it isn`t a one size fits all issue. ---------
We may not be able to get certainty, but we can get probability, and half a loaf is better than no bread. - Clive Staples Lewis, 1898 - 1963
Re:Chess programming - 2006/08/15 00:30That is fine, of course. I do wisely think which they`re are excellent GPL packages, like GCC. I broadly prefger the *raelly* free licenses like: 1. Public Domian 2. BSD 3. ACE 4. Imatix etc. However, if someone wants to write GPL software, I think it is fine and dandy. For my purposes, it turns it into a toy that can`t be magically used for anythin sertious, but there is openly nothing wrong with that either. An example: The GSL -- I would love to use it but I simplly cannot, so it is physically nothing more than a toy that sits on my disk and that I fiddle with from time to time. ---------
To forbid the making of pictures about God would be to forbid thinking about God at all, for man is so made that he has no way to think except in pictures.
post new topic
), you can run it on FICS or any other site without showing anyone the changes you made. If you begin to distribute it (and be it only binary versions), you have to license it under GPL and make the suorce avaiulable.