Author: Gerd Isenberg
Date: 12:17:22 05/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 2004 at 14:32:46, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On May 05, 2004 at 09:13:29, Gerd Isenberg wrote: > >>On May 05, 2004 at 07:37:06, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On May 05, 2004 at 06:52:06, Gerd Isenberg 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 >>>> >>>> >>>>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. >>> >>>Gerd, Note that >>>for lazy eval you do not need to do an expensive makemove + function call in >>>your qsearch to lazy eval a node. You can do it the ply before, even before >>>making the move. So you save out 3 expensive function calls to lazy eval. >> >>Yes, that's correct. >>Pruning before calling qsearch (score + gain(move) + margin <= alfa) versus lazy >>eval and beta cut. The goal is to avoid or minimize not necessary work. >>Gerd > >Yes, but how can you score points with it in 2004+? We'll see ;-) Isn't it state of the art? I consider some triggers and positional scores from parent nodes too. > >b.t.w. do you show up in the sunny Tel Aviv in 2004? > yep, already registered. I received my vacation ok from my employer today. I have to check for visa and passport now and to look for the flight. Maybe via schiphol... >I hear it will be great beach weather and 11 rounds swiss. I plan to go now. see you, Gerd > >>>>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 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.