Author: Antonio Dieguez
Date: 17:39:33 11/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 1999 at 14:58:41, leonid wrote: >On November 19, 1999 at 07:34:02, Antonio Dieguez wrote: > >>On November 18, 1999 at 18:13:12, leonid wrote: >> >>> >>>>>>>So far as I could see, in my logic, it is not that much move generation that >>>>>>>consume the most of the time but finding what move between the found one are >>>>>>>legal. Until now, with exception of moves on the ply zero, my logic used only >>>>>>>legal moves. >>>>>> >>>>>>thats a little rare, because not all moves are searched anyway. >>> >>>Actually, one illegal move can produce so many useless moves in the next ply >>>that probably it have the sense to go with the legal moves since the beginning. >>>At least, around 3 years ago, I find that in special logic for solving the >>>problems (position with invitable mate) logic with illegal moves was around 30% >>>more slower that with legal one. In positional logic I will try the illegal >>>moves efficiency. I hope that your saying is well founded and I will reach more >>>speedy logic. Expect start writing this tomorrow. >> >>I dont understand you perfectly and perhaps you didnt understand me too. >> >>The only thing I mentioned is that check stuff is checked one by one move. >> >>I guess that you generate the available moves without considering if the moves >>leads the king in check right? and then before try the first you see if its >>illegal because of checking the own king and then with the second and so on... >>right? >> >>>>no, only the check comprobation is one by one, am sorry if I was not clear. >>>> >>>>>>I first see if the king is already in check, and if not, in nonking moves I see >>>>>>if the king stay attacked only to the direction of the initial position of each >>>>>>move, and in king moves, pawn and knight stuff and in all directions, all before >>>>>>search with the new position of each move of course, one by one. >>> >>> >>>If only your expression "initial position" must be read as initial position of >>>the king, everything is clear for me. Our logics, that watch the legality of the >>>moves for the pieces that are not the king, are very similar. Similarity is >>>striking, but it is possible also that I am missing something. >> >>with "initial position" I was talking of the initial position of the piece >>moved.For example after 1.e4 e5, the white king is not in check, and after we >>generate the move list, let say the first move to try is 2.Be2, we see if the >>king leads atacked to the direction of the initial position of that Bishop, I >>mean we see f1 then g1 and stop, and nothing more.Let say other move we are >>gonna try is 2.a4, in this move the initial position is a2, so we do not do >>checking because a2 and e1 (king position) are not in the same line or >>diagonal.In the king moves the thing is different.And a possible en passant >>square is necessary to check it out too. >> >>I have not spoken about aliens, also. >> >>>Leonid. >> >>bye leonid, be well... > >I am a little bit lost in your explanation but maybe, still our logics are very >close. Probably you see, like me, all the oportunities for "friendly king" to >come under the fire, looking all the time initial position of "our king". This >we need in order to generate all the legal moves for "our side". Are you saying >just this, only given more details? hmm.. I think I was decently clear... :( anyway how do you check for check? thanks. Antonio, (el novio por internet de blanca) >Regards, >Leonid.
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.