Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 04:26:40 05/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 2004 at 06:52:06, Gerd Isenberg wrote: With bitboards perhaps it's slower. Also in endgames with non bitboards it's faster. It's not trivial to implement however. >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 > > >Incremental attack table update in one stage has probably (depending on your >design and structures) the drawback, that it is done in make/unmake, even if >those moves result in "lazy" (leaf) nodes, where most attack information is not >needed at all. > >Another aspect with incremental attacks is that the amount of work depends on >the number of squares with changed controls. So IMHO programs that do >incremental attack generation probably become relative weaker in some endings >with sliding pieces. > >Gerd
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.