fishtest VS CppCoreGuidelines

you can have a look at openbench maybe, https://github.com/AndyGrant/OpenBench . It is currently a testing framework for chess engines (only invited ones) or fishtest. https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests Stockfish testing framework. Both of these test if change A beats the master version using statistics. Both look at the git repository and download it and create/compile the engine, that might be another solution for you.

[4]: https://github.com/glinscott/fishtest/wiki/Regression-Tests#...

FishTest has thousands of computers running 24/7 https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests. Nerds at gcp,aws,universities burn thousands of GPU hours on lc0-client just to watch their GPUs warm up. They aren't just attaching 20tb of endgames to an old macbook.

if removing any rng from stockfish would gain elo it would be merged. If you think it gains elo feel free to submit a test to https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests , but it doesn't so what your saying makes no sense.

Where did you get these numbers from? https://github.com/glinscott/fishtest/wiki/Regression-Tests shows an elo difference of 351.3 elo points. This is further exaggerated by the fact that sf9 lacks nnue and is particularly weak at the starting position and consequently 960 starting positions.

In https://github.com/glinscott/fishtest/wiki/Regression-Tests you can see 8moves_v3.pgn opening book (09/11/2013 - current) with a link:

You can see the various code changes in https://github.com/glinscott/fishtest/wiki/Regression-Tests . Both the actual change and the elo change from the code change.

Current progression test is still in progress but you can see all of the previous ones here: https://github.com/glinscott/fishtest/wiki/Regression-Tests

If you aren't aware of the c++ core guidelines[1] - it should be on your radar.

Also, it might not be a popular opinion, but I think Bjarne's books are just fine.

A Tour of C++ (3rd edition) [2]

Principles and Practice Using C++ (3rd Edition) was just published in april 2023 [3]

[1] https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/CppC...

You need to talk to Bjarne and Herb...

"C++ Core Guidelines" - https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines

In addition to the other comments -

TypeScript deliberately takes a "good enough" approach to improving JavaScript, instead of designing an ideal but incompatible approach. For example, its handling of [function parameter bivariance](https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/type-compatibil...) is unsound but works much better with the existing JavaScript ecosystem. By contrast, a more academic functional programming language would guarantee a sound type system but would be a huge shift from JavaScript.

By analogy, Herb Sutter is arguing that something like the [C++ Core Guidelines](https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines), with tooling help in this new Cpp2 syntax, can bring real improvements to safety. Something like Rust's borrow checker would bring much stricter guarantees, backed by academic research and careful design, but would be incompatible and a huge adjustment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2olsGf6JIkU

Take a look at Effective Modern c++ by Scott Meyers and the ISO c++ core guidelines. These resources are great for learning how to write better, more modern C++. I don't think it would be hard to grasp if you're already familiar with the language, just make sure to actually write some code which makes use of this stuff, otherwise it's easy to forget.