Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 16:21:42 03/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 22, 2004 at 18:57:52, Uri Blass wrote: >On March 22, 2004 at 18:50:15, Dieter Buerssner wrote: > >>On March 22, 2004 at 18:16:37, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>of course i would also like to make an incremental update of that table, but i >>>decided against such an attempt because i couldn't figure out how to do it - or >>>rather, i devised a scheme for incremental updating which was so horribly >>>complicated that i decided not to use it - i'd rather have a slow engine with >>>little bugs and good maintainability than a fast engine with many bugs and low >>>maintainability :-) >> >>Reminds me of: >> >>"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, >>if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart >>enough to debug it." Brian W. Kernighan >> >>At the moment, I don't use attack tables at all. But I want them again. And I >>also only have a "build-from-scratch" routine. I also thought about incremental >>updates, and it seems like a very hard job. And the bad thing is, they seem to >>be especially useful at the leafs or close to the leafs. Perhaps I will start >>again with using them only closer to the root, for pruning/extension decisions. >> >>Regards, >>Dieter > >I update them incrementally. >I can only give a hint that I simply have a function to update incrementally >when I add a piece or delete a piece. > >I got this idea when I got the conclusion that having a function to update them >based on a move is a very hard task. I think I have the same idea: 1. Lift the piece off the board, and remove all of its influence 2. Add the piece back to the board and calculate all of its influence. Move generation and partial evaluation happens at the same time.
This page took 0.01 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.