Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: CT benchmarks: bitboard vs. non bitboard

Author: Anthony Cozzie

Date: 07:20:36 08/31/03

Go up one level in this thread


On August 31, 2003 at 02:21:03, Steven Edwards wrote:

>The portable C++ CT toolkit has classes for describing positions either with or
>without bitboard representation in use.  Here are the results of running both of
>them for enumerating the 119,060,324 movepaths of length six from the initial
>position on a 800 MHz G4 PPC notebook:
>
>Non bitboard:
>
>Frequency 1.07069 MHz
>Period 933.98 ns
>Cycles per node 747.184
>
>Bitboard:
>
>Frequency 342.689 KHz
>Period 2.9181 us
>Cycles per node 2334.48

This is why abstracting the very base datastructures is a bad idea.  Your
program is searching 340knps with no eval function, no pruning, no transposition
table lookup, etc.  If someone writes an engine based on your bitboard code it
will probably search 100knps even with just a beancounter eval.  Abstraction
always costs you in speed; in a chess program you just can't afford a 2x speed
decrease with no gain (other than being able to easily modify your code)

anthony



This page took 0.01 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.