Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 12:58:08 06/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 2000 at 13:38:11, TEERAPONG TOVIRAT wrote:
>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
I don't know for sure, but in my opinion bitboards are not superior to 0x88,
16x16 or other arrays systems.
My remark was in response to the claim that "next step are bitboards".
The availability of 64 bits processors makes no difference on this issue.
Christophe
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.