Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 09:39:45 03/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 01, 2001 at 10:32:42, Jon Dart wrote: I think it has to do with your future plans in computerchess programming. If you plan to improve your evaluation a bit, especially with expensive things like scanning board in all kind of ways like piece activity, mobility, center, scanning files and lines and all kind of similar things like scans around the king, then you sure should consider it. If your goal is to outsearch others with a smaller set of knowledge (or a similar set of knowledge) then assembly and getting 1.3M nodes a second might be an option. Not using incremental attacktables of course then as that would slow down your 1.3M nodes a second considerably (though it would reduce tree size you search). Using attacktables incremental sure means you are using attacks in evaluation. If you don't use attacks in evaluation i would consider generating attacks usually also a waste of time, either incremental or nonincremental. For me doing things incremental is faster as i don't need to check whether my king is in check. I can do all kind of conditions for extensions without recalculating attacks in between, i can do whatever i want to, not in the last place to forget the evaluation! >I used to do this but don't anymore. It was a net speed gain taking it out and >calculating attacks when needed. > >In my experience, you will call MakeMove/UndoMove in a lot of cases in which you >wind up not using the attack info, or not using it enough to justify the >incremental cost of updates on each call. > >But your mileage may vary. > >--Jon
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.