Author: Daniel Shawul
Date: 03:38:17 03/23/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 22, 2004 at 16:18:19, Anthony Cozzie 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. >> >>thanks >>daniel > >I have some code for incremental attack tables if you want it. However, it took >Tord 4 months to figure out :) I don't use attack tables in Zappa; i wrote this >when i was considering switching to a piecelist based engine. > >anthony I would appreciate if you do send me the relevant part. Another problem i am seeing I need to use a larger data type [other than 8 bits] if i have to use incremental attack tables. And this causes indexing very difficult[the thing i liked most about rebel's method]. with the previous one, you have also to keep track of the count of attacks by each piece. If you don't use that , what will you do when the knight attacks decrease from two to one.How do i know to turn off the knight attack bit if i don't keep track the count. My guess is i have to use a short and that completely leaves out the indexing scheme.If the incremental is not more faster , i don't see any reason for using that. 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.