Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 05:25:43 08/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 08, 2003 at 08:22:30, Bo Persson wrote: >On August 08, 2003 at 07:40:11, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On August 08, 2003 at 06:47:34, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On August 07, 2003 at 23:48:51, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>You guys can figure out the rest i bet seeing this code. >>>> >>>>All that bitboard idiocy always. This kicks the hell out of it. >>> >>>I doubt it, I can with bitboards incrementally generate 59 Mn/s on my 2Gig, you >>>claim 73 Mn/s on 2.1Gig, but that's not incrementally I bet. >> >>What do you mean by incrementally? > >That move generation tests are silly, because they compare apples to organges? > >If you keep your attack bitboards(!) updated at all times, raw move generation >is extremely fast because part of the info is computed somewhere else. If you >compute attack info only when needed, move generation is much slower but overall >program speed is better. > >What do you prefer? :-) I never said it was good test, but Vincent was persisting, so.. :) Btw. attack boards are not meant to speed up *move generation* :) -S. >Bo Persson >bop2@telia.com
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.