Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 11:26:55 05/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 29, 2004 at 04:24:18, Tony Werten wrote: >Yes, you would have to hop to nextsquare to see how it would go from there. Now >you only have to look what square we are talking about, and if !nil, you will >always know that the nextsquare will be given at *sq++ > >So you basicly made "nextsq" and "location of nextsq" independant of each other, >thereby making it independant of board representation and making it more >efficient since you will be traveling through the array in a row, rather than >randomly accesed. Would this be any faster than a traditional array based move generator? As far as I can tell, the array based movegen will iterate over an array, while the move table approach loops over a linked list (effectively). Looping over an array will almost always be at least as fast as looping through a linked list, right? Plus the move table approach uses more memory to accomplish the same thing. You may get some other advantages from a move table approach, but with regard to speed, the move table approach doesn't seem like it would be the fastest.
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.