Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 04:54:29 05/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 2004 at 07:17:01, James Swafford wrote: >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: Assigning scores is the first step in the sorting process. >do you use (1)bubble sort, >(2)quick sort, (3) no sort (scan for best) .. ? Depends on which is the fastest. :) -S. >-- >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.