Author: Daniel Shawul
Date: 02:06:43 05/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 2004 at 05:01:55, Uri Blass wrote: >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 have different attack tables. > >Last time that I implemented incremental tables was a long time ago before I had >a chess program. > >I did not make notes to see how much faster it was but it was more than being >1000% faster in calculating perft. > >Uri How can incrementally updating attack tables make perft faster? Infact in my case it slows it down by a factor of 4 or 5. May be we are comparing different things. daniel
This page took 0.01 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.