Author: Uri Blass
Date: 02:14:45 10/20/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2004 at 04:44:44, martin fierz wrote: >On October 20, 2004 at 03:39:31, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On October 20, 2004 at 02:27:19, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>so i want to store the move itself in the hashtable instead of the moveindex >>>now, as probably everybody is doing. >> >>Naah. > >naah? i think storing the move itself is much more sensible than the moveindex >and would have supposed everybody is doing the more sensible thing. at least >crafty does it that way. you can avoid generating all moves at all times, which >i have to do now. you can check whether the hashmove is valid or not. i can't do >all that with my stupid moveindex. it saves 2 bytes of course in the hashtable >entry size, but i don't think that is all-important. what are you doing then? Why saving 2 bytes that are 16 bits? In order to store the move in the hash tables you need only 14 bits. 6 bits for the from square 6 bits for the to square and 2 bits for promotion information. I do not know how many bits you need for your move index but I guess that it is at least 8 bits because there are positions with more than 128 moves and 14-8<16 Uri
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.