Author: Inmann Werner
Date: 04:19:14 02/04/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 02, 2000 at 21:57:27, Michael Neish wrote: > >Excuse me if I gripe. I just spent two months converting my program to >bitboards and when I finally removed all the obvious bugs I find it's searching >about 30% slower than the original routine, which just used simple arrays and >loops to generate moves, a la TCSP. > >So where does the magic of bitboards come alive? It's certainly not in my case. > >Cheers, > >Mike. I also changed to bitboards some time ago... and was at first disappointed! The "make move" routine got much slower. The move generator a little bit faster, the incheck routine a lot faster. all in all I got the same speed. But when I coded the "evaluation", I learned to love the bitboards. Passed pawns, no problem..... But I am not happy with my "bitboard implementation". It was only half hearted. When I write again from scratch, I will try to think in bitboards. If you only use bitboards, and always when you do something calculate the position of one piece out of the bitboard it is worse, then bitboards have no real sense(IMHO) Werner
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.