Author: Uri Blass
Date: 01:58:20 12/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 2002 at 03:36:59, John Lowe wrote: >On December 21, 2002 at 02:57:48, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On December 20, 2002 at 23:49:19, John Lowe wrote: >> >>>When you program castling, you have to checkout the empty squares for attack - >>>theres no reason why you couldn't do this in your situation looking "through" >>>the king. It seems much more efficient to let the king go there and find it's in >>>check. >> >> >>No it is not >> >>When the king castle I can simply use my attack table to find if the square is >>under attack >> >>When the king is in check I cannot trust them and I need to use some more >>complicated algorithm. >> >>Uri > >Hi Uri > >I use two routines for move-list generation - one simply generates peudo-legal >moves and the other simultaneously collects info on attacks, defences, pins >veiled attacks etc - but both write pseudo-legal moves and live with the >consequences later. > >How expensive (in time) is the generation/updating of an attack table ...... or >is it fundamental to your program anyway? > >John Here are my times for the initial position on p850 perft 6=119060324 time=17.25 seconds Movei need to make more than 5000,000 moves for that target and it always update attack tables after making moves. 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.