Author: Daniel Shawul
Date: 04:48:50 05/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 2004 at 07:34:55, Tord Romstad wrote:
>On May 05, 2004 at 03:03:15, Daniel Shawul wrote:
>
>>Hello
>>
>>Is incremental attack table slower than creating them on fly?
>
>The question is too general to have a simple answer, I think. It all depends
>on how your attack tables look, and how the rest of your data structures work.
Hi Tord
I use 8bit
2 for pawns
2 for knights and bishop
2 for rooks
1 for queen
1 for king
I chose this one because i want to try both incremental/non-incremental attack
table update.
>Personally, I have always calculated them from scratch at every node (not
>terribly expensive for me, because the rest of my engine is also dead slow).
Mine usually searches far lot more nodes than gothmog before i added attack
tables. But now gothmog searches deeper, i think you use lots of pruning.
>
>In my new engine, I am trying to avoid calculating the complete attack tables.
>Instead, I will try to calculate all attacks to a single square when needed.
Yes that's waht i did in the previous version. For example in SEE
i collect attack info for the square and then evaluate. But in evaluate how am i
going to do it for squares around the king and lots of other things...
I am definetlely not going back there again.
>I think it should be possible to do this rather quickly on my 0x88 board, but
Infact mine was also 0x88 and faster if you do it only at SEE. Not sure about
that if you do it in eval.
daniel
>it is still to early to say how well it will work.
>
>Tord
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.