Author: Scott Gasch
Date: 13:00:31 07/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 1999 at 02:27:56, Peter McKenzie wrote: >It all depends, of course :-) >LambChop has what I would consider to be a slow NPS rate, and would do about >25,000 NPS on that machine. This is partly because I try to have a smart >evaluation, and partly because I've never been totally hung up on speed. Fast >programs are approximately 10 times faster I think. I have messed around a little with the compiler options and a rewrite of the InCheck function and am now at about 55k nps. >- hash the pawn structure evaluation in a separate hash table I don't know what you mean by this... >- compute more stuff incrementally (update piece square scores in make/unmake >function etc) This is a good idea. Thanks. >Maybe move ordering is slowing you down - take it out and see how the NPS I am pretty sure move ordering is not a factor... I am pretty careful here and the code is fast. >A basic thing: do you have a list of pieces (as well as the basic board >representation)? In LambChop I have 4 lists: white pieces (excludes pawns, the >king is always the first in the list), black pieces, white pawns, black pawns. >I find these data structures handy for alot of things. I have no lists, just a board and the locations of the two kings. I have been thinking about putting the locations of all pieces in a list but it seems that this might be more overhead than it's worth. No? >What is your basic board representation? 0x88 is nice, although I use >Board[120]. There are different tricks for each type of representation... Board representation is 0x88. Thanks, Scott
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.