Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 15:48:11 05/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 26, 2002 at 18:15:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 26, 2002 at 16:07:41, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On May 25, 2002 at 18:02:45, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On May 25, 2002 at 17:29:03, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>you know very little from programming GCP. >>> >>>I know Sjeng can do it :) >>> >>>-- >>>GCP >> >>then you can do more than Bob and all of his advisors >>could imagine about a year ago in extensive discussions >>where i showed what bitboards CANNOT easily do. >> >>This was no problem for bob as he doesn't believe in >>knowledge. He believes in a bit of crude/rude/crafty >>knowledge which then has to search zillions of nodes >>a second. >> >>Most likely you do something simplistic which is rude >>and not accurate. >> >>Be happy with it. >> >>For DIEP that accuracy is not enough. >> >>That's why i can't use bitboards. Not at 64 bits not at 32 bits. >> >>Best regards, >>Vincent > > >I have said this before, I will say it again. Bitboards are mathematically >provable to be just as good as any other chess board representation. Think >about it for a minute and you will understand why. There is nothing you can >do with your offset (mailbox) board representation that I can't do with >bitboards, and vice-versa... As proven a year ago it is over 3 to 4 times slower to do certain things using pure bitboards. The word impossible is not good then, but the word 'not a smart datastructure to use' is more valid, though for me it comes down to the same. Best regards, Vincent
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.