Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 14:19:20 08/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 23, 2003 at 16:24:28, Andrew Williams wrote: I know this scheme very well, perhaps we should compare nps ;) Do you also xor out the changes? One problem I see with this, is that 32 bits is too big to make use of SEE by table lookups. Another problem is the number of squares that needs updating in the endgame with sliding pieces, it's just enourmous. >2. Go over all 64 squares, masking out the attacks identified in (1) above. You don't need all 64 squares, just the changes. >3. Go through all the pieces that were affected (not the captured piece of >course) and generate their attacks and mask them into the 64-uint array. Hmm, you have to cleanup this piece also I think. -S. >I would re-iterate that since I do this on every make-move, this is not an >efficient use of time, *unless* I use the information I get from it wisely. >However, another reason for doing it might be that I put a *lot* of time and >effort into getting it working properly; there's an element of pride that would >prevent me from ditching it, even if I were convinced that it is a bad idea. >Since I'm an amateur at this, I can afford this luxury. > >Andrew
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.