Author: Dan Honeycutt
Date: 11:37:23 03/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 24, 2004 at 11:30:49, Daniel Shawul wrote: >Hi > >Is it too costy to add checks only for captures in quiescent. >In my engine non capture checks decrease nps significantly.May be it is because >it is hard [at least for me] to generate only checking moves.But the capture >checks seem to work good in test suites and practically no decrease in nps in >actual play.Has any one have the same experience. > >Another completely different question. >Can attack tables efficently replace the conventional SEE routine. >Ed says in his paper he uses a table look up scheme to find hanging pieces. >But what about pinned attackers? [which the conventional SEE handles well]. >Also i can't see how a table indexed by the two 8-bit variables give an >approximation of the SEE outcome. >for example if rebel's wb[sq] = 110 11000 [3 white attacks by pawns and >knights]. How do i know whether it is 2 pawns and 1 kinght or 2 kinghts and a >pawn attacking the square? >I think using this method for see will make the already inaccurate SEE worse. >Am i right? > >daniel I use Ed's scheme slightly modified. i do 2 bits pawns, 2 bits knights & bishop, 2 bits rooks, 1 bit queen, 1 bit king. downside - i have to fetch total attackers from a 256 byte table rather simple wb[sq] & 7. upside i know if its 2 pawns and a knight (01 10 00 0 0) or a pawn and 2 knights (10 01 00 0 0). Dan H.
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.