Author: Tord Romstad
Date: 12:34:24 11/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2003 at 12:39:06, Ed Schröder wrote: >On November 27, 2003 at 07:54:50, martin fierz wrote: > >>am i missing something here, or is this just another inaccuracy that such a >>table-based SEE has (like not resolving xray attacks)? is it simply unimportant >>to resolve such details? > >It depends how you are planning to use the information, it is great for >move-ordering, q-search, static selective search, pruning, extensions, >reductions, eval. I've always wondered how you manage with only one bit for knights and bishop in your eval, for instance when using the attack table for static mate detection. How is this done? My attack tables are similar to yours, but the way my eval currently works I need 9 bits instead of 8 because of the important distinction between knights and bishops. Another question: How did you do hanging piece detection and similar stuff at the time when the memory for lookup tables was limited (like on the ChessMachine version of Rebel and on versions for various Mephisto standalone units)? Thank you very much for making your ideas public! Your Rebel pages is the most valuable chess programming resource out there, IMHO. They contain loads of interesting and useful information. Tord
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.