Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 11:41:28 05/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 29, 2004 at 14:26:55, Russell Reagan wrote: >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. The magic of Vincent's generator is that there are almost no branches and relatively little memory. The two biggest wastes of time in a modern deeply pipelined superscalar processor are branch mispredictions and cache misses. anthony
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.