Author: TEERAPONG TOVIRAT
Date: 10:38:11 06/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 2000 at 06:56:27, Christophe Theron wrote: >On June 14, 2000 at 05:32:16, Alessandro Damiani wrote: > >>On June 13, 2000 at 23:18:54, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On June 13, 2000 at 16:53:39, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >>> >>>>Combine two approaches -- 0x88 and 10x12. Use 12x16 board, and access board by >>>> board[0x20+square] >>>>(In C/C++ you can define macro for that). >>>> >>>>Than in each case you can use more appropriate of 2 methods. >>> >>> >>>Well actually Eugene it is what I do already. Sorry, I should have stated this >>>more clearly in my post. I don't use 12x12 or 10x12. I use 16x16 (actually I >>>just need 16x12). >>> >>>I don't even need to add 0x20... That's why I think 16x12 is more efficient than >>>0x88, and this comes from close examination of what a typical chess program does >>>most of the time. >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >>The next step are bitboards. >> >>Alessandro > > >How many of the top programs actually use bitboards? > > > Christophe I also would like to know if all other thing being equal what is the rating difference between the best non bitboards and bitboards program? Teerapong
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.