Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 06:38:18 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 08:30:21, Tord Romstad wrote: >On December 01, 2003 at 07:42:52, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >> >>I experimented with some incrementally updated attack tables - I gave them up >>because they were too slow. > >I had a conversation with Mridul on the ICC some time ago where this topic >came up, and he told me he had the same experience. Incremental updating >was slower. > >>They took about 1000 ns to update per node on my >>Athlon XP 1.5 [although this depends greatly on cache misses]. If you want, >>I'll send you the code. > >Thanks, it would be interesting to see! I'll let you know if I find any >possible improvements, of course. > >Tord Well Zappa is currently a bitboard based engine, and I was considering switching. Zappa's nps (in a lazy-eval position like WAC141) went from 550 -> 350 using these tables. The big problem I had was that the bitboard code will be considerably faster once I get an Opteron, while the attack table code will stay slow. anthony
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.