Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 08:46:34 06/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 2003 at 10:30:58, Magoo wrote: >I did some tests last night, replacing my in_check() function with attack >tables, my thought was that it would be faster, but the result was not that >good, ok i did a fast hack, scanning the whole board because i dont have piece >lists, but my previous x-ray in_check function was huge. But now im wondering if >attack tables (implemented with piece lists) are that much better than x-ray. > >You have to check all pieces, = 8 pieces (king checks). >You have to check if pawns are promoted... = x pieces. >Check two squares in front of the king. > >And of course, sometimes you have to do some tracing.. (sliding pieces). >In the opening, middlegame there are usually pieces near the king, so the x-ray >based in_check only has to trace a few directions. >This got me thinking that the difference between the two isn't so big, am i >correct? maybe attacks are a few % faster? Could you explain what you are doing? I was under the impression (and it seems to work in Zappa) that in_check() is simply: Get_All_Bishop_Moves(KingSquare), see if there are enemy Bishops/Queens at the tips. .... etc. I tried writing an is_check(Position, Move) once, but it turned out to be too annoying.
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.