Author: TEERAPONG TOVIRAT
Date: 09:17:48 02/28/01
Go up one level in this thread
>You will run this to test to speed of your movegen and makemove? >That's how I understood your original message. Actually,my current program is checkers one. In former version, I use single array board representation. After I read Amy source code,I understand how bitboard works. I heard many people said bitboard can generate move faster in chess. In checkers, some facts are no nullmove,no killers,no PVS ,no SEE etc..and very simple eval() and plain AB function with hash table. So,I think if I can improve movegen() speed,my program will be stronger. Then, the project start ,I wrote a new checkers program based on bitboard ,modified from Amy. The result was quite dissapointed it's slower. You may look at what Dr.Hyatt commented. Amy bitboard always updates attack_to,attack_fr informations in (un)makemove()s. If only 2 movegen()s were compared, bitboard is slightly faster. But if test it in combination with (un)makemove()s,it becomes slower in proportion to the ratio of (un)makemove()s. So,this is my original question what is the optimum ratio between them. Is it acceptable to use branching factor ? How other people test these problems? I don't know really. I'm not a great programmer :) Now,I focus of movegen() in Crafty. I plan to modify it into my program. I still have some hope with bitboard. >I don't understand what you mean when you say this: >"And call it recursively to count number of visiting nodes then compare >with our real search()." I remember when I experimented about branching factor myself. I have some problems ie.it varies from ply to ply ,from position to position and from game to game. Please remember we didn't talk how the figure 4 are from. Perhaps,the branching factor is 4 in some situations and less(more) than 4 in some situations. So,a perfect test,IMHO, should have approximately the same nodes as normal search() does. Perhaps,I'm too anxious about this. You may call me a Mr.perfectionist. >Count which nodes? Isn't it obvious how many you will visit? >What will you use that number for? Am I still missing something? Just to convince you that your figure is too high. I think now we have reached some agreement. I'm really happy for your interest to my post. I cannot find anyone surrounding me who interested in computer chess, so, I think CCC is a wonderful place. CCC lets me express my idea and gives me some interesting ideas from other people. Now,it's late at night again... :) Teerapong
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.