Author: Daniel Shawul
Date: 01:55:16 05/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 2004 at 04:40:43, Andrew Williams 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. >> >>best >>daniel > >It's a very long time since I implemented them, but at the time I compared the >incremental ones were faster. I can't remember exactly how much faster it was, >but I think it was of the order of 10 to 15%, if only because that is what a >comment in an old source file says. What I don't know is if this was *after* >thorough debugging. > >Andrew I am sure mine is *well* debugged becuase i found perfect perft numbers. My move generation code uses the attack tables very well. So a mistake in updating will surely be reflected in perft. one thing that can slow down incremental may be, if i cutoff after making the move it is a waste to update the table.Also the incremental benefits from fast InCheck and Checks function. I can't think of anything which cause this much slowdown. By the way should i compare the two without cutoffs[like perft]? Currently i don't have a perft for non-incremental attack tables. 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.