I have written my own GUI for playing and teaching chess. The GUI was written using HTML for the appearance, and JavaScript for the behavior of the pieces. Currently the program does not follow any of the rules of chess. It is up to the user to follow the rules of chess correctly. This allows the freedom to set up illegal positions or move the same side multiple times. This is very useful when trying to teach chess to beginners.
I am now looking at the idea that I would like to hook my program up to a chess engine. I haven't a clue on how to go about this. Most chess engines like StockFish or Rybka use a UCI for communicating with the GUI. I don't know how to make my program UCI compatible. I am not interested in writing my own chess engine, I would simply like to download an engine and have it interact with the GUI that I have written.
My board is made up of div tags, the pieces are just PNGs that can be dragged and dropped around on the board with complete freedom independent of chess rules. Ideally, I'd like to be able to set up any random position on my GUI, and have that position sent to the engine for analysis, with the best move recommendations returned. I don't even really need the program to move the pieces on the board for me as I can do that myself.
Does anyone have an idea of how I might get started on this project?
You can use http://cinnamonchess.altervista.org/ with the JS Version that includes the chessboard.js and chess.js that implement all the caracteristics you need. Also you can improve the system.
The UCI protocol spec is found here:
http://wbec-ridderkerk.nl/html/UCIProtocol.html
As a high level it defines a set of commands to be sent from the GUI to the engine and vice versa.
You can see that you can use the protocol to set up any position with the position command followed by a FEN string (other variants are available).
As an example the command:
position fen rnbqkbnr/pp1ppppp/8/2p5/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq c6 0 2
Would give the engine the position after 1 e4 c6
You can then use the go command (with various options for time restrictions, etc.) to have the engine calculate a move.
You could run the risk of confusing the engine by attempting to send illegal moves and/or multiple successive moves by the same colour (whilst we are on this theme also avoid trying to send an illegal position e.g. black in check with white to play).
As long as your code handled these illegal oddities at the gui end (or in some intermediate layer) by stopping any ongoing game whilst illegal manoeuvrings take place before sending the resulting position to start a new game, then any UCI engine should cope just fine.
There are thousands of UCI chess engines out there for almost any conceivable platform - many of them free and/or open source. This list should give you a decent start:
http://computer-chess.org/doku.php?id=computer_chess:wiki:lists:chess_engine_list
I'd guess that your choice would depend, to some extent, on the Operating System you intend to deploy this on (if your gui is html/js then I'd guess on some webserver somewhere but is that LAMP, WAMP, ASP.Net, or any other variety I've probably never heard of! :-) )
So long as you can get AN engine executable loaded and pass in commands & read responses through the standard I/O you're away!
Good Luck - do let me know if you get it deployed somewhere. Would be nice to be able to cheat the machines! :-)
Related
i have a question concerning computer programming. Let's say i have only one computer with no OS running. And would like to start to "develop" an OS. basically what i have is a blank sheet an a pen to do so. an a couple of electronic devices. how do i put my instruction into that computer?
because today we use interpreter of compiler that "turn" programming language into what they call "machine code". But my question could be how to generate machine code from nowhere.
Thank you for your replies, a link to learn how to do that will be must welcome.
The first computers where programmed making the "machine code" directly. Just punching one's an zeros into cards (well, in fact they punched octal digits).
This was done that way until somebody thought it would be a nice idea to have an assembler which translated the machine code instructions into that ones and zeros.
After that, another guy thought that it can be very nice idea to have a programming language, who will translate "top level" instructions to machine code.
And after that, or probably at the same time, some "internal procedures" where created to ease the programming: to open a file, to close a file the only thing you have to do is to call an internal subroutine in the machine instead of programming all the open file and close file subroutines by yourself: the seed for the operating systems was planted.
The cross compiling issue that is commented here is the way to create an operating system for a new computer nowadays: you use a working computer as a "lever" to create an operating system for a new computer.
it depends on how far back you want to go. the earliest ones "programming" was moving wires from one essentially analog alu to another.
The woman/women programming at this point were called computers and used use pencil and paper.
later you use a pencil and paper and the datasheet/documentation for the instruction set. assemble by hand basically, there are no compilers or even the concept of a programming language at this point, this has to evolve still. you wrote down the ones and zeros in whatever form you preferred (binary or octal).
one way to enter code at this point is with switches. certainly computers predated it but look for a picture of the front panel of a pdp8 or the altair, etc. you set the switches for the data value and address, and you manually strobe a write. you load the bootstrap in this way and/or the whole program. set the start address and switch to run mode.
over time they developed card and tape readers for which you loaded the bootstrap in by hand (switches) then you could use a reader to load larger programs easier. cards could be punched on a typewriter type thing, literally a keyboard but instead of striking through a ribbon onto paper, it cut slots in a card.
oses and programming languages started to evolve at this point. until you bootstrapped your compiler you had to write the first compiler for a new language in some other language (no different than today). so the first assembler had to be in machine code, then from assembler you could create some other language and so on.
If you wanted to repeat something like this today you would have to build a computer with some sort of manual input. you could certainly but you would have to design it that way, like then you need the debouncing out but you could for example have a processor with an external flash, be it parallel or serial, mux the lines to the switches (a switch controls the mux) and either address/data/write your program, or for fun could use a spi flash and serially load the program into the flash. much better to just use one of the pdp or altair, etc online simulators to get a feel for the experience.
there is no magic here, there is no chicken and egg problem at all. humans had to do it by hand before the computer could do it. a smaller/simpler program had to generate more complicated programs, and so on. this long, slow, evolution is well documented all over the internet and in books in libraries everywhere.
Computers are based on a physical processor which was designed to accept instructions (eg. in assembly code) that only allowed primitive instructions like shift, move, copy, add. This processor decided how it spoke (eg. how big were the words (8-bit) and and other specs (speed/standards etc). Using some type of storage, we could store the instructions (punch cards, disk) and execute huge streams of these instructions.
If instructions were repeated over and over, you could move to an address and execute what was at that location and create loops and other constructs (branches, context switches, recursion).
Since you would have peripherals, you would have some kind of way to interface with it (draw, print dots), and you could create routines to build up on that to build letters, fonts, boxes, lines. Then you could run a subroutine to print the letter 'a' on screen..
An OS is basically a high-level implementation of all those lower level instructions. It is really a collection of all the instructions to interface with different areas (i/o, computations etc). Unix is a perfect example of different folks working on different areas and plugging them all into a single OS.
I'm starting game development, but I really want to avoid hacking together a step-by-step game. I'm thinking, what's a good system for handling all that goes on?
For example, I thought of making a menu class, that contains an array of objects for buttons in the menu, and then every game loop call update() on the menu, which in turn calls update() on all the buttons, passing user input and such along the way. Is this a good way to do it?
I'm trying to find structural techniques past the game loop, any advice would be appreciated. Thanks!
(BTW I'm using c++)
This question is not that trivial, but let me try to give you a really simple answer. You need at minimum a core architecture where you can register several engines. Take a deep look into state machines and several software patterns. There have been really greate game dev books like the Game Programming Gems. Start reading an older book from André LaMothe. Read source code ie. from Half Life 2 that could be downloaded at some places.
It sure depends on the environment, C++ is best and could be the fastest way to write games but would you like to use DirectX or OpenGL, do you need Audio and advanced input? Do you want to start with the older WinApi? Nevertheless it always starts in a single point, the main loop. There your state machine should be initialized and all resource managers need to be set up. For graphical objects you need to think about a low level init, update, draw, release and destroy cycle. UI is built up on Graphics, Input and other parts. Don't start writing your own UI or you need to spend the next 2 years with it. You need a relational game model that describes the world you want to create.
To be honest, read a lot about patterns (like mvc), state machines, gpu pipelines and framework design. Read a lot of code from very talented people that open sourced it for us:)
By the way, what is a step by step game?
I'm a little confused on Xlib programming now. I started to use dwm (a lightweight window manager) a few weeks ago, and I'd like to pickup some Xlib programming books or online resource to customize the dwm.
However, after Googling around the web, I don't see much new articles talking about Xlib?? The newest programming guide for X window system on Amazon is in 1994!? Is no new articles of Xlib because the old book are sufficient, or because there are some new technology that I'm not aware of? Or, maybe I didn't have the right keyword to search on the web. If that's the case, can someone please point me to the right place?
There aren't any up-to-date books that I know of. You really just have to read a bunch of specs and source code. Fortunately it isn't that complicated.
I'd say reading the source to gtk+/gdk/x11 (the X backend to GTK) and the source to your favorite couple of WMs would go a long way. The ICCCM and EMWH specs are essential.
A huge change in X programming since the old guides is that nobody likes to use many of the server-side facilities for drawing, fonts, printing, etc. anymore. So XDrawFoo functions, everything about fonts, XPrint, GCs, colormaps, all that is more or less obsolete. Drawing is generally done on the client side now with libraries such as Cairo or Skia.
The stuff about windows and pixmaps and the basic way X works in those old books would still be accurate though.
Some good general X advice if you're messing with a WM:
you need to respond to events rather than getting state. For example, always consider your size to be the last size you got a ConfigureNotify for; don't call XGetGeometry or something to get your size. Getting state has two problems: it kills performance (blocking for a round trip = performance death) and it introduces race conditions.
in a WM, you're dealing with other apps' windows, and they can be destroyed at any time, which will result in an error if you're touching that window. so any function you call on a window may fail.
never use CurrentTime, always use a real timestamp, or you'll create freaky race condition bugs that will drive you crazy
There are lots more tips I guess but those are three to get you started avoiding common mistakes ;-)
For my job i've been using a Java version of ARToolkit (NyARTookit). So far it proven good enough for our needs, but my boss is starting to want the framework ported in other platforms such as web (Flash, etc) and mobiles. While i suppose i could use other ports, i'm increasingly annoyed by not knowing how the kit works and beyond that, from some limitations. Later i'll also need to extend the kit's abilities to add stuff like interaction (virtual buttons on cards, etc), which as far as i've seen in NyARToolkit aren't supported.
So basically, i need to replace ARToolkit with a custom mark detector (and in case of NyARToolkit, try to get rid of JMF and use a better solution via JNI). However i don't know how these detectors work. I know about 3D graphics and i've built a nice framework around it, but i need to know how to build the underlying tech :-).
Does anyone know any sources about how to implement a marker-based augmented reality application from scratch? When searching in google i only find "applications" of AR, not the underlying algorithms :-/.
'From scratch' is a relative term. Truly doing it from scratch, without using any pre-existing vision code, would be very painful and you wouldn't do a better job of it than the entire computer vision community.
However, if you want to do AR with existing vision code, this is more reasonable. The essential sub-tasks are:
Find the markers in your image or video.
Make sure they are the ones you want.
Figure out how they are oriented relative to the camera.
The first task is keypoint localization. Techniques for this include SIFT keypoint detection, the Harris corner detector, and others. Some of these have open source implementations - i think OpenCV has the Harris corner detector in the function GoodFeaturesToTrack.
The second task is making region descriptors. Techniques for this include SIFT descriptors, HOG descriptors, and many many others. There should be an open-source implementation of one of these somewhere.
The third task is also done by keypoint localizers. Ideally you want an affine transformation, since this will tell you how the marker is sitting in 3-space. The Harris affine detector should work for this. For more details go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_affine_region_detector
I have been asked to investigate porting Wii games and some (Sony) PSOne games to OpenGL ES (can you guess what platform?).
I have never undertaken a game port like this before (and will be hiring someone to do it) but I'd like to understand the process.
Does the Wii use OpenGL? If not what does it use and how easy is it to port to OpenGL / OpenGL ES?
Are there any resources/books/blogs that will help me in understanding the process?
Will my company have to become an official Wii developer? If so where do I start that process?
Porting from the Wii or the PSOne is a complex and involved task that can be broken down into multiple separate engineering efforts working in parallel to produce a working end product. The best possible thing you can do before moving to the target hardware is to compartmentalize all of the non-portable code while ensuring that the game continues to run as expected. When you commit to moving to the new platform, your effort switches to reimplementing the non-portable compartmentalized parts.
So, to answer your question, yes, you will need to become or work with a Sony and Nintendo licensed developer in order to take this approach. In the case of Sony, I don't even know if they offer a PSOne development program anymore which presents issues. Your Sony account rep can help clarify.
The major subsystems that are likely to be the focus of your porting effort are:
Rendering Graphics code contains fundamental assumptions about the hardware it is being run on in order to perform optimally. API-level compatibility is superficial compatibility and does not get you as much as you may hope it does. Plan on finding the entry point to the renderer and determining what data you need to render a scene and rewriting all the render code from there for your target hardware.
Game Saving Game state serialization and archival will need to be separated out. Older games often fwrite() structs with #pragma packed fields. Is that still going to work for you?
Networking Wii games write to high level services that are unavailable on your target hardware. At the low level, sockets are still sockets. What network services do your Wii games rely on?
Controls From where you are coming from to where you are going, anything short of a full redesign or reimagining of input will result in poor reviews of the software.
Memory Management Console games often make fundamental assumptions about the rate the system software returns memory from the heap, how much fragmentation it will cause and the duration the game needs to operate under these conditions. These memory management assumptions are obsolete on the new platform. It is wise to write your own memory manager that provides a cushion from the operating system. Also, console games compiled for release are stripped of most error handling and don't gracefully handle running out of memory-- just a heads up.
Content Your bottleneck will be system memory. Can you fit the necessary assets into memory? With textures, you can reduce mip where necessary and with graphics hardware timing, you can pull in the far clipping plane. With assets resident in memory, you may need a technical artist to go through and reduce the face density of your models or an animation programmer to implement a more size-friendly animation codec. This is very game specific.
You also run into the standard set of problems with things like bit compatibility (though the Wii and PSOne are both 32-bit), compiler idiosyncrasies, build script incompatibilities and proprietary compiler extensions.
Games are relatively challenging to test. A good rule of thumb is you want to have enough testers on your team to run through the game in a maximum of two days, covering all major aspects of play. In games that take a long time to beat (RPGs with 30+ hours of gameplay), your testing team needs to be quite large to offer full coverage. Because you are just doing a port, you can come up with a testing plan that maximizes coverage of your new code without having a testing team punch every wall in your game to make sure it (still) has clipping. The game shipped once.
Becoming a licensed developer requires you to apply. The turnaround time, from experience, is not good. Generally speaking, priority is given to studios with shipped titles and organized offices with reasonably good security and the ability to buy the (relatively) expensive development kits. You may be better off working with a licensed developer if you do not meet these criteria.
Console and game development is challenging for people already experienced in it. There is no book that covers it all. My recommendation is to attempt to recruit an expert who has experience shipping titles in a position of systems or engine programmer. What types of programmers and skillsets exist in games is a whole different question for Stack, though.
Games consoles don't use OpenGL but their own, custom libraries. The main reason is that they are pretty slow and have little RAM. So you need to squeeze out every drop of performance you can get. And that means: Custom code. Usually, you get a framework with the developer kit which gets you started and then, you build your code from that. Eventually, you'll start replacing parts from the developer kit with your own special code to get all the speed and special effects you need.
There is a reason why PSOne games are so ugly on the PS3 despite the fact that the developers have access to the sources: Revenue just doesn't justify to touch the code.
Which is one reason why game development is so expensive: Every game is (more or less) a completely new product. Sometimes, game companies can reuse a bit of code from the last version but more often than not, they have to develop everything again. They also don't talk much with each other.
In recent years, kits have become more complex and powerful and you can get complete game engines (with all kinds of effects and 3D support) but each engine is a completely different kind of beast, so you can't even copy code from engine A to B.
Today, media content (video, audio and render sequences) are so expensive that the actual game engine is often a minor detail, so this isn't going to change any time soon.
Net result: If you want to port a game, write an emulator for the hardware (which is usually pretty simple and allows you to run all kinds of games).
[EDIT] To develop software for the Wii, see here: http://www.warioworld.com/
For a Wii emulator, see http://wiiemulator.net/
I ported a couple of games, when I was a new game programmer, from working with one version of our engine to a newer version (where backwards compatibility was neither ignored nor pursued). Even copying (and possibly renaming) the files and placing them in a home in the new project was a bit of work. Following that, the procedure was:
recompile
fix many of the hundreds of errors [in many places, with the same error occurring over and over again]
and
"wire up" calls from the new game engine to the appropriate calls in the old code
"wire up" function calls from the old code into the new game engine
deal with other oddities (ex. in the old game engine, the 2d game would "swizzle" textures itself; in the new version, the engine did it (on specific platforms))
and, while I don't recall this clearly, it was probably mixed in with a bunch of #ifdeffing out portions of code so the thing would actually compile, and possibly creating function stubs to be filled in later.
As I recall, it was three or four days until I had something that compiled. (But, it did help when we ported other games from the old version to the new one!)
The magnitude of the task will come down to what the code you are getting is like. If it has generic 3D calls that you can intercept -- add a thunking layer to -- then you are in business. It depends on the level of abstraction in the code. If it is well-behaved and has things like "RenderModel" and "RenderWorld" calls, you can replace those functions, and even the structures that they work with. If drawing is occurring all over the place, and calls are more like "Draw Polygon" and "Draw Line" or "Draw using this highly optimised data structure", then you are likely in for a long slog.
You shouldn't need a Wii dev kit. Sometimes it is nice to verify that the code you are given does indeed compile in the original environment (and matches the shipping code!), but sometimes you can just take it on faith and make it work in its new environment.
Lastly, I don't think the Wii uses OpenGL, and I really don't know where to point you for further help.
What you may want to do is to start with designing the architecture of the game, write up a detailed specification for what the new game is like.
Once you have this, since you will be rewriting the code, you may find that some of the business logic that doesn't deal with the console can be ported over. But, anything dealing with I/O, user interaction or graphics/sounds will be rewritten, so you might as well do that from scratch.
A specification is very important, to make certain that you know how the current game is working so that the new port will give the same user experience, if that is what is desired.
You may want to keep the same bugs, if that is part of the experience, as, if I know that in the Wii I can jump down and bounce off the wall to safely land, then if I can't do that in the new version then that may be bothersome.
Well porting a PS1 game to an iPhone would be quite a task they work in very different ways. I'm sure its doable but it will be a LOT of work to replace all the fixed point maths and lack of Z-Buffer based rendering to a real graphics chip.
Wii would be a lot easier. The Wii API is very similar to OpenGL. However the Wii has some very nice fixed function features that just are not available on any other GL based platform. Should be doable, though ...
I'm not really sure I can say anything more than that. Have signed far too many NDAs over the years to be 100% sure of what I can and cannot say ;)
Still if you want to hire someone to do some porting work and are prepared to supply the required hardware then I might be free ;)