Author: Reinhard Scharnagl
Date: 08:13:47 09/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 2004 at 10:55:24, Peter Fendrich wrote: >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 Peter, this simply has been an reaction. I think it is very hard to compare different generators. I invest a lot of efforts in the fully informed moves, you have to inspect sub-plys later - there is no big difference. But as long you do not update similar statistics, comparing would be odd. May be I have to switch off the detecting of mates to have comparable results. Regards, Reinhard.
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.