Author: Daniel Shawul
Date: 00:57:36 05/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 2004 at 03:26:36, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >On May 05, 2004 at 03:03:15, Daniel Shawul wrote: > >>Hello >> >>Is incremental attack table slower than creating them on fly? >>I have both versions working properly right now but the incremental >>one further drops NPS by 30% , though InCheck and Checks are for free in this >>case. Anybody have similar experience? I am sure i have made no mistake in >>updating because i checked it with the known perft positions and node count is >>perfect. > >It depends on your implementation. For me, incremental updates work much faster. My implementation is simple. I remvoe a piece with its influence and add a piece with its influence. I also extend slider attacks in case 1 and shorten sliker attacks in case 2. In some cases there may be overlap. For example when a piece is captured , extending and shortening happens at the to square to a net effect of 0. But even doing that should not slow me down by that much? should it? > > >> >>best >>daniel
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.