Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add includeBlunder argument (solves #16) #20

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 24, 2021

Conversation

karol-brejna-i
Copy link
Collaborator

@karol-brejna-i karol-brejna-i commented May 14, 2021

My proposal for dealing with omitting the blunder move (initial move of the puzzle) --solves #16 .

  1. Puzzle generation stays untouched
  2. Blunder move removal happens when exporting the puzzle to PGN
  3. Move exporting a puzzle to PGN to a dedicated class (PgnExporter).

I am wondering if we shouldn't invert the logic (meaning) of the argument: having something like skipBlunder instead of includeBlunder. Then we could have simpler construction, like ./main.py --skipBlunder

@karol-brejna-i karol-brejna-i changed the title Add includeBlunder argument Add includeBlunder argument (solves #16) May 14, 2021
@karol-brejna-i
Copy link
Collaborator Author

karol-brejna-i commented May 14, 2021

Some additional changes sneaked in:

  1. Silencing the UCI engine (logging.getLogger("chess._engine").setLevel(logging.WARNING))
  2. Small readme fix
  3. Removal of unused args in opening_counter.py

opening_counter.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Owner

@vitogit vitogit left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Excellent work. thanks!
Just waiting if you want to delete the opening file, then I will merge

@vitogit
Copy link
Owner

vitogit commented May 22, 2021

I am wondering if we shouldn't invert the logic (meaning) of the argument: having something like skipBlunder instead of includeBlunder. Then we could have simpler construction, like ./main.py --skipBlunder

I think we can have shorthands for the params, like -sb to skip blunder or just -s, -q for the quiet param, etc

@vitogit vitogit merged commit 47670a9 into vitogit:master May 24, 2021
@vitogit vitogit mentioned this pull request May 24, 2021
@vitogit
Copy link
Owner

vitogit commented May 24, 2021

I opened a ticket in case we want to change how the arguments works #22

@karol-brejna-i karol-brejna-i deleted the include-blunder branch June 3, 2021 07:22
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants