Author: Daniel Shawul
Date: 04:38:55 05/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 2004 at 07:30:27, Vincent Diepeveen 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's eating a few % system time in diep so i really wouldn't possibly know how >that could slow me down by 30%. > >However important is to realize where you use the attacktable. > >In diep i use it for move ordering, i use it in my evaluation function and i'm >not using lazy eval (but even with lazy eval it would be way faster. I also use it for all of the things you said above. But i also use lazy eval which gives a push to the non-incremental attack table move generation. If i don't use lazy eval the slowdown will be roughly 20%. > >Optimizing the code is not so easy. My move generator is optimized for >incremental attacktable generation (and especially if you would use unsigned >variables with it). Perhaps you should take a look at it. I didn't optimize the move generator yet because in non-incremental attack table update i loop through all piece updating attack information and generating moves simultaneously. I want to have a look at your code. Where can i find it? daniel > >>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.