Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:06:27 08/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 08, 2003 at 10:06:31, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On August 08, 2003 at 09:39:51, Bo Persson wrote: > >>On August 08, 2003 at 08:43:49, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On August 08, 2003 at 08:22:30, Bo Persson wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>That move generation tests are silly, because they compare apples to organges? >>> >>>Did not you learn that it is better to ignore everything that vincent say? >> >>No, because I am totally out of my mind. Vincent told me that the other day. :-) >> >>>He attacks personally people who disagree with him so it is better to say >>>nothing if you disagree with him. >> >>So then I shouldn't say this: >> >>I once tried to avoid the "slow" bitboard operations by saving a list of From >>squares. While generating capture moves, I also stored the squares in an array. >>Then I could use this array "for free" when generating non-capturing moves. >>Saved me one bitboard scan! >> >>Guess what - it made my move generation slower. Scanning the same MovingPieces >>bitboard twice, once for captures and once for non-captures was faster. >> >> >>>My post was not about the importance of the tests but a simple question to sune. >>>Sune said that he is using incremental move generator >> >>Yes, if you use bitboards you can do that. Easily. >> >>>It is unimportant to discuss about subjects that vincent talk about unless he >>>apologizes about his bad behaviour. >> >>Why should he apologize, when he is always right? >> >>I was very happy to read about how he does a branchless version of >> >> if (piece == pawn) > >you can get rid of that. i didn't in move generation because it is not >important at 0.6% system time. the important thing is that this code is only >having a loop for all kind of evaluation scans which eat majority of the system >time when checking for patterns of course. > >Bitboards you can't combine all that knowledge in as i already proved a year >ago, so i am really amazed by Joost Buijs comments. > >Hyatt said he didn't need such sophisticated features in evaluation. Joost >didn't get that far yet it seems which amazes me. Why don't you stop putting words into my mouth? I didn't say that. I have _repeatedly_ said "anything you can do your way, I can do with bitboards." I can point you to a proof in any good theory book if you want it. It has to do with proving that a Turing machine with 1 tape is just as powerful as a TM with N tapes. You should check it out and stop making stuff up. > >Most important thing is that future processors and already a few existing >processors which are important to me, can use this way of coding very well. > >This where at bitboard code they suck ass. Even though they are or will be 64 >bits processors. Everything but your approach is bad, according to you. Fortunately, you don't design the processors... > >>earlier in this thread. You learn something every day! >> >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>Bo Persson
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.