Anonymous user
Talk:Chess player: Difference between revisions
→Task size: End it?
(→Task size: The problem is that longer solutions hinder readability) |
(→Task size: End it?) |
||
Line 14:
I would love to see folks attempt a modern chess engine in other languages though. My recent survey found that all the top engines were in C/C++ (rated 3000-3300), with the [[Delphi]] engine Booot at 2935, [[Java]] engine Cuckoo at 2675, and [[C sharp|C#]] engine Pupsi at 2610. Engines in other languages were only of amateur demo quality, not even worth mentioning. --[[User:IanOsgood|IanOsgood]] 17:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
: I suspect that a modern chess engine capable of playing at those sorts of levels would be out of the scope of RC. We're focused on idiomatic and beautiful examples showing by example how to program with many languages. A high quality player is likely to be sufficiently complex ''independent of language'' as to be hard for most programmers to work through. That there are other sites devoted to just this task is a good indication that it is out of our scope! –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 13:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
===End it?===
It has been two years and there is still only one solution Abu. I think the RC community thinks this is too large a task. I vote that this be deleted. Maybe the suggestion of having a smaller chess-related task should be followed? (Something where a succinct algorithm can be shown)? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 06:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
| |||