Author: Rémi Coulom
Date: 02:47:51 01/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 2003 at 13:16:33, Bruce Moreland wrote: ... > >Checking specifically for pawns is probably right. Looking at two squares on >the board is probably faster than spinning through 8 pawns. I agree with you. I first suggested that testing for pawns first might not be a good idea, but I had not noticed that the piece list was sorted. The question is now: is it a good idea to keep the piece list sorted? I suppose it adds complexity to the make/unmake functions. Bas says it helps MVV/MVA move ordering, but I tend to believe that ordering moves based on MVV/LVA only is not very good. > >I think that the problem here is that he has a loop in the first place, which is >just an aspect of 0x88. > >I don't know how the bitboard "attacked" function works, but if it does less >work, it's going to be faster. I agree too. 0x88 might slower on attack detection, but the speed of makemove/unmakemove compensates so that perft should be faster on a 0x88 implementation than with crafty. > >bruce Also, my general advice to anobody starting to write a chess programs is that spending huge amounts of time optimizing the low-level functions is probably not an efficient way to obtain a good level of play. I suppose most top-level programs could have their basic functions (make/unmake, genmoves, attacks) twice slower without very significant losses in strength. Rémi
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.