Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 13:09:22 05/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 29, 2004 at 14:41:28, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >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 I really don't understand all the hype about a generator. I just had a look at a profile, mine spends something like 5% generating moves. That's hardly worth even looking at to optimize. It might be due to its incremental design that it's so fast though ;) Sorting the moves however, now that takes time. -S.
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.