Author: Severi Salminen
Date: 12:41:03 12/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
>The point is that I do not have to do the extra work to calculate perft 6 nad >calculating perft is a well defined problem that is different from playing >chess. > >There is a point in comparing the time that my program needs to do a job with >the time that other programs need to do the same task. True, but I consider perft as a task where engine updates the board representation structure (or array) to all legal positions from a certain position. So I think that one really should visit also the leaf nodes, not just generate the moves (even if they are legal). I can do perft 5 in a second if I do all but the "frontier-moves". But I don't think it is right number - Crafty also makes/unmakes ALL the moves. And this means updating the structures. And if we don't do the same we shouldn't compare elapsed time also. >I did not decide about a name for my program. >I may also try to test it for more positions to see if I have more bugs. > >It is very complicated so I am afraid from bugs. >I found bugs even after finding that it calculates perft 8 correctly. That is very likely (not that it is likely that YOU make bugs, but that you don't maybe notice them in 8 ply search) as there are no promotions or queenside castlings in that depth (from initial position, of course). For me the bitboard (especially rotated bitboards) has been the most complicated thing to make bugfree. Now it should be and it is quite fast also. Severi
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.