Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 08:15:35 03/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 22, 2004 at 07:44:35, Peter Fendrich wrote: >On March 22, 2004 at 07:06:53, Tord Romstad wrote: > >>On March 22, 2004 at 03:40:57, Daniel Shawul wrote: >> >>>Hello >>> >>>I have decided to use attack tables. I just did >>>a rough implementation of it at the beginning of the eval >>>according to Ed's paper. The problem is the thing dropped the nodecount >>>by almost 40% . Initial position nodecount was 800000 and now it is 500000. >>>Do incremental move attack tables help? And how do i update the table? It seems >>>very difficult to update a sliding move and other special cases. >> >>Hello Daniel, >> >>Yes, attack tables tend to be expensive. I calculate them from scratch at >>every node, and my impression is that most others (including Ed) does the >>same. Perhaps it would be possible to do it faster by some sort of >>incremental updating, but I am fairly sure it would still slow you down a lot. > >...and also provide a new source of bugs that are very hard to find. >/Peter In debug mode, you calculate both incrementally and a complete recalculation. Then compare in an assert. Then it is very easy to spot any problem. >>You simply have to decide whether it is worth the cost. >> >>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.