Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:02:26 06/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 20, 2000 at 04:55:22, Dann Corbit wrote: >On June 20, 2000 at 04:41:47, James Robertson wrote: > >>Ignore all results from my previous post "Rough comparison between ro....". I >>made some stupid coding errors in my test rotated bitboard code. Once fixed the >>rotated bitboards look very competitive against 0x88. :) I also found flaws in >>my 0x88 code, but they were very minor and I think I caught all of them (correct >>move lists are generated in all my test positions). >> >>I am very happy to continue to use rotated bitboards. Thanks Robert for >>inventing them, and thanks Tim for showing me how to use them! > >What was the timing ratio for various operations between the two methods? > >For the 0x88, what board size did you use? For 0x88 you don't have much choice... it has to be 128, where you use the left half for the board, the right half (64 squares) are off the board. There is really a top half of 128 words also, but 0x88 eliminates references to them due to the 0x80 bit not being allowed.
This page took 0.01 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.