Author: martin fierz
Date: 08:19:33 09/20/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 20, 2004 at 10:38:31, Robert Hyatt wrote:
[snip]
>>>>> if (tree->in_check[ply] && tree->last[ply]-tree->last[ply-1] == 1) {
>>>>> tree->one_reply_extensions_done++;
>>>>> extended+=onerep_depth;
>>>>> }
[snip]
>>so the whole point of bob's code is that it runs 0.01% faster if he first checks
>>for in_check and only then checks the (a-b == 1) thing, because he saves the
>>a-b. at least that's what i assume when looking at it.
>
>No. in_check = 0 says use normal move generator. in_check = 1 says use special
>check-evasion generator so that I don't have to cull all the illegal moves as I
>try to search them.
not "No." :-)
i was talking about the code i've left unsnipped. it would be simpler if you
left away the if tree->in_check[ply] part; i assume that is what is about 0.01%
faster than doing only the second part.
cheers
martin
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.