Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:46:01 03/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 08, 2003 at 12:05:59, Russell Reagan wrote: >On March 08, 2003 at 09:41:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>Sure you can. You can evaluate all the pawn-only stuff, and then you can >>pre-cmpute whatever you need such as passed pawn locations, weak pawn locations, >>weak square locations, open file locations, half-open-file locations, and so >>forth. You stuff that in the pawn hash table, and then use it when you evaluate >>pieces to get the "coordination". > >I wonder if it would be faster (or reasonable) to keep track of this stuff >incrementally. For example, from the starting position, you know that if a pawn >makes a capture, or is captured, then that file is half open. So you can keep >track of how many captures have been made to or from a file, and keep track of >isolated pawns that way. I use incremental evaluation of pawn structure so I do not need to calculate pawn structure in every node inspite of the fact that I evaluate every node. I guess using a pawn hash would still be faster or more >generally useful, and as with all things incrementally updated, you do some >wasted updating computations where you may not use it. I read that you get almost 100% hits with pawn hash so it is clear that you can save time by doing it. I did not do it for similiar reasons that Ed did not do it and it is not a thing that may give me a big improvement(today I use the static pawn structure for pawn evaluation but I plan to get rid of it in the future). I may think about it again after I improve the pawn structure evaluation and improve the speed of other parts of my program. 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.