Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:33:27 08/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 17, 2003 at 00:15:19, Federico Corigliano wrote: >I already do that in the qsearch, since the first version, and I also skip >captures that lose material (based in SEE). > >My question was conerned to the code in next.c of Crafty. How much is the speed >difference (in % of nps, not in nodes because should be the same) vs. a Crafty >that generate all the moves at the same time, sorts it, and choose from one in >one? >The difference between the two versions is that ie. if the hash move generates a >cutoff I gained the time of generate captures and no captures, or if ie. the >killer2 move generates a cutoff, then I gained the time of generate the no >captures moves. > >I hope that my explanation is understandable :-) >Federico Perfectly understandable. I used to know the answer to that question. When I first started, I generated everything. A couple of years later, I split the captures and non-captures, and started with the idea that I use today, that is after the hash move, I generate captures, then if they fail to produce a cutoff, I try the killers and then generate the non-captures. In Cray Blitz, since we were not a pure bitboard engine, we generated all moves at the same time. On a vector machine, this actually makes sense. But anytime you can avoid doing something now, on the hope that you never need to do it at all, you end up winning, if you keep the cost down.
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.