Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:28:53 01/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 06, 2003 at 02:19:13, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 06, 2003 at 02:02:34, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On January 05, 2003 at 23:21:40, Russell Reagan wrote: >> >>>It's probably best not to, since it is a linear improvement to an exponential >>>problem. Where the real improvements in playing strength will come from are >>>exponential improvements to the exponential problem (like null-move knocking >>>that branching factor down). Of course, I'm sure you already know this, and this >>>is your clever way of making others think about it for themselves and discover >>>the answer on their own, giving us all a greater sense of accomplishment and >>>self worth (not to mention saving us a great deal of time) ;-) >> >>Yes, I agree with this. The real improvement comes in doing new stuff, not in >>making the old stuff a few percent faster. >> >>Which is why I brought this up. If I could decrease bf by a few percent I'd get >>more speedup than I would by performance twiddling for years. >> >>bruce > >In my case I found that thinking about new stuff gave me idea to improve the >speed of Movei. > >I thought about implementing one of Ed's ideas and I found that changing my move >generator to find the biggest capture take too much time inspite of the fact >that movei generate the list of the legal moves >before making a move because I like to have the ability to use information about >that number for extension and pruning decisions. > >I decided to have special function of generating moves for non captures and >captures and it made my move generator faster. >I continued with adding special function for generating white pawn moves and >black pawn moves and even the function of white pawns I divided to generate pawn >move one square,generating pawn move two squares... > >I believe that it may be possible to improve the speed of all part of the >program by a factor that is bigger than 2 but new data structure is needed and >it is not simple to do it. > >I believe that all programs do too much the same thing again and again. >One example is that programs usually do not use the list of the moves 2 plies >earlier for generating moves and I believe that a big gain can be earned from >doing it but it is not simple to do it with no bugs so I even did not try to do >it. > >Uri Some do that. Including an early version of Crafty. However, generating all moves _can_ be faster than incrementally updating the move list from two plies earlier, which is why hardly anybody does this today.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.