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: Russell, 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 :) -S. >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.