Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 22:43:45 06/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 25, 2002 at 20:07:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>No, this is 1 pawnhashtable lookup. Don't care how you got the information you >>put in the hashtable, because of the hitrate that's not important. > >OK... "is the king in the square of the pawn?" You can't hash that with >pawn hashing because the king can be on 64 different squares. classical (in my program) 5 loads 1 compare bitboards 3 64-bit loads 1 64-bit AND Slower on 32-bit, faster on 64. >"are my rooks connected?" two loads, an AND, >and a branch to see if one rook is attacking the other. I don't see, how this can work :) You need one load for the Rook bitboard, and how are you going to check whether the path between them is onobstructed with the remaining 1 load and 1 AND? >>Bitboards are best for pawns (imo) but because of the hashtable, it's not that >>important. (Altough "is this rook behind and not in front of a passed pawn" >>would save me some time with bitboards instead of what I'm doing now. > >that is another example. No hashing helps there either. Ditto for questions >like "does white have an outside passed pawn?" and so forth... Why wouldn't you be able to hash 'outside passed pawn' ? -- GCP
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.