Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 10:30:15 12/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 06, 2001 at 13:17:09, Uri Blass wrote: >>What is wrong with his method? >> >>-S. > >Nothing wrong >The only thing is that the comparison is not fair. > >fair comparison is the time that you need to do the same task. > >Calculating perft is a well defined task. >making and unmaking moves is not well defined task and if my makemove gives more >information then I should have the right to use it. Yes but this it the problem anyone with a strong engine has. Too much information is carried around in the make and unmake funktions to make it fast in the perft test. Most would have to redesign large parts of their code to compete with these times, so it is not really a meaningfull test in that regard. >His comparison was not the right comparison and the right comparison is when I >do not have to make and unmake the moves but only generate the moves. > >I also think that not generating castling moves is not going to help much in the >time that I need to calculate perft 6 in the initial position because finding >that there is a piece between the king and the rook is easy. It is, but what about checking if the squares are attacked, this is not so easy, it is _the_ problem of move generation IMO. Therefore I am switching to a different set of move rutines once castling is over. >my move generator calculate perft correctly except not generating unpassant >moves in replies to check and generating illegal unpassant moves in rare cases >but fixing the problem is not going to change the speed significantly. > >I guess that I am going to do it in the near future. > >Uri
This page took 0.01 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.