Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 10:27:30 10/07/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 07, 2003 at 13:08:28, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >I'm sorta disappointed, actually. YOU could always make the statement :) >I think I said that it was harder with bitboards ;) However, it is not exactly >_easy_ to write in any representation. > >The logic runs like this: A big part of capture evaluation is xray: if I have >Ba1 + Qb2, my pawn at e5 is defended twice, not once. With bitboards, figuring >this stuff out is very annoying, because get_attacks_bishop(E5) will not find >the bishop. To make things even more annoying, imagine Pf6, Pe5, Qb2, and Ba1 - >now we have to deal with pawns as well. With a 64 byte or 0x88 board, you just >keep scanning. This is why Zappa's capture evaluation actually doesn't use the >bitboards (slight fib, but mainly it scans). I was going to recommend that you could still do scanning quite easily using bitboards, and it shouldn't need to be any slower than an 0x88 approach, if you are careful. >I'm working on incremental attack >tables right now so that I don't have to mess with it. Be sure that you can really benefit from the overhead involved, because when you go incremental, you have that overhead no matter what. If you do things on the fly, you save work in cases where you don't need it. I know several people prefer to do things on the fly, but I don't know of anyone that has tried both ways and uses the incremental approach, but I certainly don't know what everyone does. >P.S. I believe SEE refers to capture analysis in place of Q search, although >perhaps its meaning has changed somewhat. I thought that SEE, in general, wasn't used in place of qsearch. Of course, anyone is free to do this and it might work fine, but I think it's used more for move ordering usually.
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.