Author: KarinsDad
Date: 23:46:20 02/03/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 04, 2000 at 01:10:57, Michael Neish wrote: [snip] > >Well thanks to those who replied to my initial question. I can see >now that bitboards are still not universally acknowledged as "superior". I think the reason for this is that each person's programming experience differs and if you find something that works reasonably fast, there is a general lack of desire to search for a potential non-existent improvement it as opposed to fixing a bug or enhancing performance elsewhere. I also think the term "bitboard" is a rather general term. I think there are probably more bitboard structures in use than there are programmers using them (since most programmers who use bitboards use more than one type of bitboard for different things). Overall, it would seem that bitboards should (on the surface) be at least as fast if not faster than other methods, but it is totally dependent on how you implement them and on other aspects of the program (for example, in my case, my bitboards are used in move generation, in evaluation, and in post analysis, so if your program does not re-use them, then you may not get as much bang for the buck). [snip] > >Interesting discussion. Obviously I was naive to expect my program to run like >a cheetah after putting Bitboards in. Looks like it's going to be a struggle. > It's always a struggle. If it wasn't, the problem would have been solved long ago and would not be interesting. But, isn't it fun to search for the reasons that our expectations are not always met? KarinsDad :)
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.