Author: James Swafford
Date: 04:17:01 05/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 2004 at 03:36:59, Sune Fischer wrote: >On May 29, 2004 at 22:53:38, James Swafford wrote: > >>On May 29, 2004 at 16:09:22, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>What type of sort do you use? How often do you sort your >>move list(s)? > >I use SEE for the most part, expensive but seems to be well worth it. SEE scores moves, it doesn't sort: do you use (1)bubble sort, (2)quick sort, (3) no sort (scan for best) .. ? -- James > >-S.
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.