Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 03:41:49 11/18/99
Go up one level in this thread
My program uses incremental move generation, in the sense that 1 move at the time is generated. I too think the advantage over staged generators (eg. only captures) is small, if any at all. Bas Hamstra. On November 16, 1999 at 15:46:00, Frank Schneider wrote: >On November 16, 1999 at 13:01:40, Peter Kappler wrote: > >>On November 16, 1999 at 11:32:45, Antonio Dieguez wrote: >> >>>about "high perfomance move generation", anybody have tried to generate moves >>>incrementally? I mean in the same way you update bitboards or any other aspect >>>of the board?, for example after 1.a2-a3 a7-a6, you would never generate queen >>>moves, as you already now that the available moves of her will not change if the >>>from and to squares of that moves are not connected with her, and so on, trying >>>to generate only the neccesary moves of each pieces, its more complicated but it >>>works and am sure it has been tried, but is better? >> >>Hi Antonio, >> >>I've thought about trying it, but it's definitely complicated. I think Bob >>started this way on Crafty and then switched back. I'm pretty sure a few others >>have tried this, hopefully someone will post some performance comparisons. >> >>--Peter > >Hi, > >Gromit 2.20 uses incremental movegeneration. About 50-80% of the moves >can be reused. >Every piece has its movelist. When a move is made attacktables are updated >and an 'affected' bitmask (2x16 Bit) is computed. Only moves of affected >pieces have to be generated later. > >Works quite well if you have to update attacktables anyway. > > >However, the overall gain in performance is small. > >Frank
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.