Author: Dieter Buerssner
Date: 14:33:53 06/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 24, 2004 at 17:15:38, Uri Blass wrote: >On June 24, 2004 at 16:53:33, Dieter Buerssner wrote: > >>On June 24, 2004 at 16:13:03, Gerd Isenberg wrote: >> >>>I tend to put things on an explicit stack, >>>specially if items are still less than 128 sized. >> >>Gerd, I did the opposite lately. I started for example with a global array for >>the PV. I changed it to a local array of search (long before I started to >>program chess - this was done with my Kalah program). First tests seem to >>indicate, that an explicit move stack is not faster, than having a local array >>inside search. And the later looks cleaner to me. 512 (pseudo legal) moves will >>certainly be enough. Probably 256. But then search might fail for illegal >>positions (15 Qs for one side). Perhaps I ´phrased it wrong, >stack of 512 legal moves will not be enough because the stack of moves is not >only for the legal moves in one ply. I was talking about a local array for the moves (each instance of the recursevly called search function will have its own local array). For legal chess positions. You can have at most 9 queens. Each queen can have at most 27 moves. 9*27=243 2 rooks -> at most 28 moves each, and so on. You will never have more than 512 pseudo legal moves (with the usual definition of pseudo legal moves). Even not with 15 queens. Perhaps, 256 is not enough. But not many more. Regards, Dieter
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.