Author: Peter Fendrich
Date: 07:55:24 09/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 2004 at 09:32:01, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: - snip - >I do not know what you are thinking of. You can see that I am also are counting >mates, which have to be detected first. But indeed, I have a move-generator >which produces fully informed moves (capture, e.p., check, double check, >mate ...). So using that hardly calculated information for to optimize perft is >no cheating. I think, that using a pseudolegal move generator is a trick >instead. No, no I'm not implying that you are cheating but I think it is possible to optimise the code for perft only and that is not cheating. I can think of some techniques that would be very useful for perft but not useful for move generation in search. For instance just by skipping the sort (if one have a sort) in MoveGen would make perft way faster. Anyway it's hard to compare different approaches but I would like to get some figures despite that so thank you for your input! BTW. I'm using a pseudolegal move generator but have to go one ply deeper in order to capture the errors. The final perft counters are still correct so I don't think that's cheating either. /Peter
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.