Author: Gerd Isenberg
Date: 16:56:41 10/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 22, 2002 at 19:16:42, Gerd Isenberg wrote: >On October 22, 2002 at 19:01:43, Peter Fendrich wrote: > >>On October 22, 2002 at 18:27:11, Gerd Isenberg wrote: >> >>Hi Gerd, >>I'm not sure I understand this: >> >>- snip - >>>Due to the >>>simultanious feature this algorithms seem a favorably alternative to rotated >>>bitboards, even without assembler. >>- snip - >> >>Do you really mean that the c-code in the previous post in this thread is faster >>than rotated bitboards? >> >>Peter > >Hi Peter, > >I believe yes on 64-bit processors in conjunktion with using this routines with >sets of multiple pieces. > >I use it currently with mmx-registers in Leiden. > >http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?259095 > >See also the reply of Steffan using move target set for each direction! > >Regards, >Gerd Some more improvement is possible if you do several directions in parallel by arranging the code sequences in an independent way. If enough registers are on board that gains a lot. (Athlons seems to make four mmx-instructions in parallel). For hammer i will try to use 128-bit xmm-registers with some SSE2-assembler instructions, e.g. generating sets for both sides simultaniously. This routines may also be helpfull in flood fill iterations, looking for pieces reaching a target (set) in n or less moves. Gerd
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.