Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:35:20 02/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 11, 2000 at 18:06:41, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On February 11, 2000 at 14:44:16, Andrew Dados wrote: > >>It looks like I misunderstand your post and connected it to last Toms post in >>that thread - his proposed list range is : pieces 0..16 then Pawns 17-whatever >>etc.. >>I just don't see reason to rigorously separate Pawns and Pieces at the cost of >>enlarging list he proposed. So we both seem to agree on making loop ranges small >>for overall speedup (and some extra effort in make/unmake, which is negligible >>for overall performance anyway). > >At least in my program, all of my code is different for pieces and pawns. If I >had pieces and pawns in the same list, everything would go slower, because I'd >have to constantly check to see what kind of piece I'm working with to determine >what code to run. > >Having a big array doesn't necessarily make your loop range larger. A few posts >ago, I described how you can easily fill up the blanks in the list. If you do >this, it doesn't matter how big your array is. > >-Tom you actually don't have to do this except for exception-type moves. IE in Cray Blitz we generated all moves in one long loop, pawns and pieces.. We had a 'quirk' to handle enpassant. The idea somewhat followed Carl Ebeling's thesis "all the right moves".
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.