Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:23:35 10/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2001 at 13:35:48, Tony Werten wrote: >On October 24, 2001 at 09:40:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 24, 2001 at 05:38:21, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >> >>>I originally posted this on CTF by mistake. On Tina's suggestion, I've reposted >>>it here. >>> >>> >>>I know very little about bit boards, but I had random thought about what you >>>could do with a cpu that has 128 bit words. Does it make any sense to use 128 >>>bits instead of 64 bits in a bitboard approach that is analogous to 0x88? Would >>>rotated bitboards still be necessary? >>> >>>Okay, I know these are random thoughts indeed. So what advantage if any would >>>128 bits have for bitboards? >> >>Rotated bitboards would still be useful. But now it would take one operation >>to update two of them at once. IE normal and rotated 90 in one 128-bit >>word, the two diagonal rotations in another 128 bit word. Would work fine. >> >>Although 128 bit microprocessors are probably 20 years away or longer... > >Why 20 ? The amount of bits seem to have doubled every 10 years until now. > >Tony Demand. Even supercomputers of today don't use 128 bits. Such values are so very big it is not very likely they will be used for quite a while. IE most "numbers" simply don't require such large representations, which wastes a lot of bus bandwidth transferring 128 bit values when the majority are 16 bits or less...
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.