Author: TEERAPONG TOVIRAT
Date: 22:02:46 03/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Vincent, >No pvs?? First, we may have different checkers,I think. I don't remember where I read this from. Perhaps,Chinook papers. It said checkers is different from chess. In chess, we gradually build up positional advantage then turn it into material,but in checkers zugzwang can happen anytime... So,I use the hash table move and some move ordering mechanism. >For me PVS works best in draughts, quite similar to checkers when >talking about search approach. No nullmove of course. Killers work >a bit but not so well. SEE is not there as capturing the longest >string is forced in draughts (not in checkers there you can chose). >also very simple eval in my Napoleon, i think about 3000 lines >of C source code at most. At least,it's true for my checkers. >I wonder how you plan to use bitboards in a checkers prog. >Despite that it's just 32 squares in total you need, you can't >shift things to the next row simply. One would need a bigger >bitboard for that. I had read about Samuel's work in 1960-1970++.He used 35 bit machine with good result. But,I try to avoid using unsigned long long for this task. >Way faster is the sequential way of doing things. In assembly >you could use some PII instructions even removing all problems. > >However the only problem my draughtsprogram has is not the >generation speed. not even evaluation speed. the problem is the >transposition table speed. It's already that hell fast that >only hashtable lookups and writes hurt... ...not to mention >egtb lookups... Thanks for your suggestions, I think I'm not ready for assembly. 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.