Author: Heiner Marxen
Date: 06:21:21 03/23/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 23, 2004 at 04:51:18, Uri Blass wrote: >On March 23, 2004 at 02:24:38, Tony Werten wrote: > >>On March 22, 2004 at 19:21:42, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>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: >> >>You left out the interesting part: >> >>> >>>1. Lift the piece off the board, and remove all of its influence >> >>1b for every slider attacking the fromsquare, extend its influence > >You miss the idea > >All the idea is that I consider no from square and no to square in updating the >attack table. > >I look at a move as a sequence of add piece to square and remove the piece from >square and I have function to update the attack table when I add piece or remove >piece. That is exactly the way I do it in Chest all the time. Still, extending through a removed piece is necessary, as well as restricting sliders at a newly placed piece. But you knew that already :-)) But e.p. and castling are just some more calls of these basic operations. I have 3 basic operations: put, delete and replace. >Uri
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.