Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:51:36 06/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 24, 2004 at 17:33:53, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >On June 24, 2004 at 17:15:38, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On June 24, 2004 at 16:53:33, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >> >>>On June 24, 2004 at 16:13:03, Gerd Isenberg wrote: >>> >>>>I tend to put things on an explicit stack, >>>>specially if items are still less than 128 sized. >>> >>>Gerd, I did the opposite lately. I started for example with a global array for >>>the PV. I changed it to a local array of search (long before I started to >>>program chess - this was done with my Kalah program). First tests seem to >>>indicate, that an explicit move stack is not faster, than having a local array >>>inside search. And the later looks cleaner to me. 512 (pseudo legal) moves will >>>certainly be enough. Probably 256. But then search might fail for illegal >>>positions (15 Qs for one side). > >Perhaps I ´phrased it wrong, > >>stack of 512 legal moves will not be enough because the stack of moves is not >>only for the legal moves in one ply. > >I was talking about a local array for the moves (each instance of the recursevly >called search function will have its own local array). I do not have it because I have a global array. Uri
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.