Author: Daniel Shawul
Date: 04:49:17 03/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 22, 2004 at 07:06:53, Tord Romstad wrote: >On March 22, 2004 at 03:40:57, Daniel Shawul wrote: > >>Hello >> >>I have decided to use attack tables. I just did >>a rough implementation of it at the beginning of the eval >>according to Ed's paper. The problem is the thing dropped the nodecount >>by almost 40% . Initial position nodecount was 800000 and now it is 500000. >>Do incremental move attack tables help? And how do i update the table? It seems >>very difficult to update a sliding move and other special cases. > >Hello Daniel, > >Yes, attack tables tend to be expensive. I calculate them from scratch at >every node, and my impression is that most others (including Ed) does the >same. Perhaps it would be possible to do it faster by some sort of >incremental updating, but I am fairly sure it would still slow you down a lot. > >You simply have to decide whether it is worth the cost. > >Tord Hi Tord I am going to use them whatever the cost. But I am intending to do it only at quiescence nodes [not at internal nodes]. If I use an incremental one I can also use it for internal nodes too.I am not sure how much i save by doing this but like you said a minumum of 20% decrease seems inevitable. I guess you are using the table at internal nodes for move ordering.My see is a very costy operation. But with this attack table i hope it is for granted? Good luck with Gothmog. [ofcourse it doesn't need my luck,it's already a world beater!!] daniel
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.