Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:04:27 06/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2001 at 09:28:19, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On June 25, 2001 at 13:25:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 25, 2001 at 12:56:26, Artem Pyatakov wrote: >> >>>I have decided to keep track of attack tables in my program, because I think >>>they will save computation time in the eval. >>> >>>My question now is this, given the experience of most people in this group, what >>>is the most useful info to keep in the attack table? >>> >>>Should I just keep the number of times that white is attacking the square and >>>black is attacking the square? Or is it very useful to keep track of what actual >>>pieces (and on what position on board) are attacking the square on both sides? >>> >>>Or is it some other kind of attack info? >>> >>>Thanks for all of your responses. >> >> >>If you are going to do this, the "counts" are pretty useless. You need to >>know which pieces are attacking a square. IE if I have two pawns attacking >>the square and you have a rook and queen attacking the square _I_ control it. > >They are pretty useful in fact in many cases in DIEP. > >In crafty eval is so just a few pages, so i can imagine you don't want >to generate this info as you can use it nowhere in eval! > >Best regards, My "bare eval" is about 3600 lines of code, plus ancillary stuff in utility.c. So close to 5,000 lines of C. That is more than just a "few pages" unless you have enormous printers/screens over there. If I need that, it is not hard to extract. just like mobility is not hard. I just don't need it. >Vincent
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.