Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 00:03:22 06/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2000 at 23:10:51, Christophe Theron wrote: >On June 13, 2000 at 17:06:57, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On June 13, 2000 at 16:10:05, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>With the other approach, you need a table lookup to tell that the square is not >>>inside the board: >>> >>> // 12x12 way: >>> if (board[square]==-1) it_is_outside; >>> else it_is_inside; >> >>If your board starts out being 12x12, then you're right, it doesn't really make >>a difference if you switch to 0x88. >> >>However, I know that a number of programs use an 8x8 board. To do the bounds >>testing, they convert the 8x8 offset into a 10x12 offset and then back again. >>You can see this done in TSCP. This method is obviously a loser compared to >>0x88. > > >I don't really understand why you would use a 8x8 board if you use 12x12 >coordinates or the opposite... > >Actually I'm using 16x16 coordinates, so I shouldn't have mentionned 12x12 or >12x10, but just 16x16 (well actually I just need 16x12). > >I think 16x16 is more efficient than 0x88 and I explained why. And it is much >simpler to understand than 0x88 BTW! The way you test the out of bound condition >in 0x88 is great, but that's the only advantage of this system, and as I >explained nobody cares for this test most of the time! > > > Christophe What makes 16x12 better than 12x12? I'm sure it allows for some clever bitwise operations somewhere, but I don't quite get it... --Peter
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.