Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 04:42:30 05/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 2004 at 07:38:55, Daniel Shawul wrote: >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? ship me an email and i'll give you a reply with it. things like move generation are just a matter of good implementation, that's all. eating 30% systemtime is just too much. it's like 2.4% or so in diep >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.