Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 14:32:06 08/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 23, 2003 at 17:19:20, Sune Fischer wrote: >On August 23, 2003 at 16:24:28, Andrew Williams wrote: > >I know this scheme very well, perhaps we should compare nps ;) > PM does about 170knps. >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. > Yes. It's nowhere near as nice Ed's scheme. >Another problem is the number of squares that needs updating in the endgame with >sliding pieces, it's just enourmous. > Yes. >>2. Go over all 64 squares, masking out the attacks identified in (1) above. > >You don't need all 64 squares, just the changes. > Yes. This is one of those things I keep "in hand" for when I run out of new things to try. >>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. > Yes. This could be done better too. I definitely wouldn't claim that PM's approach is optimal. It just works. If I ever get really concerned about it, I can eliminate some of the unecessary work. I don't think it's critical to do it at the moment. 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.