Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: perft records

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

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.

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.