Author: James Swafford
Date: 14:13:56 08/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 05, 2004 at 00:00:00, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >On August 04, 2004 at 23:38:46, Stuart Cracraft wrote: > Just an observation, but the time of your post is 00:00:00. Were you really that lucky? :) Or is that a bug? I guess you were 'lucky'. The preceding post was only 21 minutes before midnight. -- James >>Nothing technical here that anyone can really chew >>on and I don't expect any huge insights from myself >>or anyone; but I have had nothing but bitter frustration >>after trying to implement something ostensibly simple: >>avoiding a full move generation after a successful >>has lookup. My version with that feature is still >>8.5% slower than the version that does a full move gen >>and looks for the hash move afterwards. >> >>Nothing like banging one's head against a concrete wall >>for a week. > >This bulletin board is some kind of weird Rogerian Reflective >counselor's couch! So I worked on this problem for 1+ week >and was ready to give up, write a simple post, and 5 minutes >later find it. > >New program is: > > 19.5% faster than previous non-optimal attempt with same > movegen-after-hashmove >and > 12.5% faster than the prior attempt with movegen-before-hashmove > >The code is certainly uglier with special exceptions and a three-way >flag for various conditions of the hash move, but when all was said >and done, the pizza man delivered. > >Now on to SEE and I see there is a helpful thread already out there. > >Stuart
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.