Author: Matthias Gemuh
Date: 10:47:32 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? Don't try to program attack boards because of in_check(). If you already have them for other reasons, they may already include a free in_check() for you to use. /Matthias.
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.