Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 11:07:39 06/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2000 at 21:32:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 19, 2000 at 20:50:11, John Coffey wrote: > >>On June 19, 2000 at 19:48:36, Larry Griffiths wrote: >> >>>I have found bitboards to be an even trade-off on my Pentium system. I have to >>>update about 6 bitboards when a piece moves and this generates a lot of >>>instructions. I get it back in my IsKingInCheck code so it evens out. I like >>>to have fast move generation code, but most of my gains have been through >>>alpha-beta, hash-table, killer-move and movelist ordering etc. >>> >>>Larry. >> >> >>Maybe I am too much of a novice, but I don't see yet why I should convert over >>to bitboards. Is move generation faster? If so, why? My program scans the >>board and uses simple loops to generate moves. Do you not have to do loops >>with bitboards? > >Not to generate moves, No. You generate all the sliding piece moves with two >table lookups... Hmmm. I do table lookups all over my program, and none of them seem to be generating any moves... The fact is that you DO need to loop to generate moves in a bitboard program. Maybe it's not the same loop, but it's still a loop. -Tom
This page took 0.02 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.