Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Static Exchange Evaluation (SEE) for pruning in quiescence (?)

Author: Sune Fischer

Date: 13:55:33 08/19/03

Go up one level in this thread

On August 19, 2003 at 16:37:40, Russell Reagan wrote:


I think the difference between amateurs and "pros", is that the pros don't
guess, they simply test things out and conclude from there!

Whichever is faster is better, no "religious" agendas :)


>On August 19, 2003 at 13:56:53, Dan Andersson wrote:
>> Dynamically updating attackboards is fairly fast. And you get legal moves and
>>captures as an added benefit.
>I'm not sure I understand this. Do you mean you get "legal moves" as opposed to
>"pseudo-legal moves"? Or do you mean that you get move generation for free? I'm
>also not sure how you get captures for free.
>>I favour the attackboard board representation
>>where each square is an unsigned 32 bit integer. One bit per piece no less. It
>>can readily be combined with any other scheme AFAIK.
>> When you make a move you update the attack information of the moved piece and
>>pieces attacking the to and from squares as well as any captured piece. Castling
>>and ep are special cases. This might be done with iteration or even using a
>>bitboard. Whichever is fastest.
>Like Sune, I'm also a little skeptical that this will be faster, but it wouldn't
>be the first time I've been wrong :) I am reminded of the time that Christophe
>said, in regards to bitboards, that while you can compute more complex
>evaluation terms using bitboards, those complex terms aren't necessary for a
>strong program, and that any of the necessary things that can be done with
>bitboards can be done at least as fast with a his representation.
>So I wonder, are the things you'd be doing with your attack board represnetation
>necessary? And if so, can it be done at least as fast with another approach?

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.