Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:38:34 06/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 2002 at 03:49:37, Dann Corbit wrote: >On June 13, 2002 at 17:06:49, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On June 13, 2002 at 16:09:07, Brian Richardson wrote: >> >>>On June 13, 2002 at 15:07:25, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On June 13, 2002 at 14:45:06, stuart taylor wrote: >>>>[snip] >>>>>That's great! I didn't realize it was you. >>>>>I wish you great success, and I'm sure you might eventually become no.1 on >>>>>ssdf! (but don't waste too much time over it).] >>>> >>>>I think Uri has taken a very wise approach. He spent a great deal of time >>>>optimizing a move generator. This is the heart of a chess program. A program >>>>that has everything else excellent, but an average move generator can become >>>>strong but not a superstar, because it will become a bottleneck at some point. >>> >>>At some point yes, but long after the eval and search bottlenecks are reached. >>>I suspect most programs spend about 5-10% time in generating moves, and 30+% >>>time in eval. >> >>Not Movei >>Today it wastes most of it's time in generating moves. > >This is a very strange statement if you have hash tables. I have never seen any >program spend most of its time in generation if it uses hash tables. > >[snip] Hash tables are used today only for better order of moves and not to prune the tree. I also understood that most of the advantage of hash tables in the middle game is better order of moves and not pruning the tree. Movei also does not use hash tables in the most effective way because it is use the always rewrite method and does not use 2 tables or use one table effectively. Uri
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.