Author: Uri Blass
Date: 06:47:35 03/23/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 23, 2004 at 09:21:21, Heiner Marxen wrote: >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. I have no replace and I simply do put and delete. I decided that most of the moves in chess are not captures so adding a replace function will probably be a waste of a lot of time without big advantage in speed. Uri > >>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.