Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 22:03:14 12/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 31, 2002 at 23:03:03, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On December 31, 2002 at 20:32:28, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On December 31, 2002 at 19:50:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On December 31, 2002 at 17:49:52, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>From Ed programmer stuff >>>> >>>>Killer-One [current ply] 110 >>>>Killer-One [current ply-2] 108 >>>>Killer-Two [current ply] 106 >>>>Killer-Two [current ply-2] 104 >>>> >>>>I until today used only >>>> >>>>Killer-One [current ply] >>>>Killer-Two [current ply] >>>> >>>>I am interested to know if using 4 killers is a new idea or maybe this idea is >>>>known to be used by other programs. >>> >>>It was known in 1975. Chess 4.0 used this. You can find it mentioned in >>>the chess 4.7 chapter of "Chess Skill in Man and Machine." >>> >>>We did that in Cray Blitz, but we also did more killers, going back to the >>>root in fact... >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>I did try part of the idea that Ed suggested without clear results. >>>> >>>>I changed the order of moves in movei to >>>> >>>>Killer-One [current ply] >>>>Killer-One [current ply-2] >>>>Killer-Two [current ply] >>>> >>>>instead of >>>> >>>>Killer-One [current ply] >>>>Killer-Two [current ply] >>>> >>>>I found that it is better only in part of the cases and have not clear results >>>>if it is better or worse than previous order but I had a bug in the >>>>implementation and I checked killer[ply-2] even in cases when ply-2<0. >>>> >>>>It is surprising that the program did not crush and even performed better in >>>>part of the cases. >>>> >>>>I still do not use check bound software. >>>>I asked in a previous discussion about checking bounds but I solved the >>>>problem that caused me to ask about it and I also read a claim that if a >>>>varaible is out of bound the program should crush. >>>> >>>>I also looked for a software that will help me under visual C++ but after I >>>>asked to get it for free evaluation and I only got an email that suggest me to >>>>contact them by fax or telephone I did not respond(I responded by email but my >>>>email was blocked for some reason and I decided that the subject is probably not >>>>very important). >>>> >>>>I think now that it may be important because a chess program may even play well >>>>inspite of the fact that it calls killer[-1] so it is possible that I have more >>>>mistakes like that. >>>> >>> >>>That probably won't hurt a thing. That move probably would not pass your >>>legality check, so even a garbage move would just waste a tiny bit of time >>>as you notice it is not legal in the current position. >> >>Yes but I can still imagine problems. >> >>1)If I am unlucky a garbage move may be legal so it can be counterproductive. >> >>2)I thought that garbage may do something worse than giving a random >>number. >>I thought that if my program try to look at some place that does not exist the >>program may crush and not give me a random number or may change another array. >> >>I also cared not to have -1 >> A[x]=1; and not >>if (x>=0) >>A[x]=1; >> >>If you are right then it means that there are cases when I can save time by >>doing something like >> >>A[x]=1; instead of >>if (x>=0) >>A[x]=1; >> >>The point is that if I understand correctly then I understand from your post >>that a[x]=1 when x=-1 can not change relevant information. >> >>If I assume that the condition x>=0 happen in most of the cases then it seems >>clear that A[x]=1 is faster. >> >>Uri > >Referencing A[-1] will likely give you intermittent problems that are hard to >track down. If you really think you can't afford the check, though, then do >something like this (C++ code below:) > >int PADDED_A[102]; >... >const int & A = PADDED_A+2; > >Now you can reference A[i] where i is an int in the range -2 to 99 without >trashing memory that doesn't belong to you. AFAIK this hack technically invokes >undefined behaviour, but it's safer than not having the padding at all, where >you might change the value of another variable by accident. Personally, I'd >just test for the condition. > >Dave I assume you mean const int *A = PADDED_A + 2; :)
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.