Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 08:17:48 06/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 20, 2000 at 09:02:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Christophe Theron posted a few interesting pointers to using 16x16 instead of 16x8 last week (I think). Andrew
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.