Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Rough comparison between rotated bitboards and 0x88

Author: James Robertson

Date: 20:56:11 06/20/00

Go up one level in this thread


On June 20, 2000 at 21:09:58, Christophe Theron wrote:

>On June 20, 2000 at 14:58:54, James Robertson wrote:
>
>>On June 20, 2000 at 12:18:06, Ralf Elvsén wrote:
>>
>>>I'm asking about things I don't have much personal experience from
>>>so forgive me if this is a stupid question. With BB, as I understand
>>>it, one usually have a lot of precomputed BB-arrays, like bishopsMoves[square],
>>>maybe blocks[from][to]  or the rotated BB-stuff. Is this causing problems
>>>for the cache? How much precomputed stuff is needed in 0x88 compared to this?
>>>
>>>Ralf
>>
>>I'll answer your second question first. A tiny amount (guesstimate, maybe 1k) is
>>needed for 0x88. Bitboards require much more... almost 600k for core arrays on
>>my program. Crafty uses some funky thing called compact attacks which I guess
>>compacts the attacks. I don't know how it works. (Dr. Hyatt, could you please
>>explain how it works and what it's advantages are?)
>>
>>The precomputed arrays are usually in the form of attacks for ranks and files.
>>To try to stuff all bishop or rook moves into one array is a bad idea. For
>>instance, in my program, rook moves would require an array of dimensions
>>8*64*256*256 bytes = 33MB!
>>
>>Taking two arrays, one for ranks and one files (each 8*64*256 = 131072 bytes) is
>>a lot better.
>>
>>James
>
>
>I thought bitboards were elegant?
>
>Sorry, but 128K arrays to do such simple things sounds really ugly!
>
>Like a hammer to kill a fly.

Yes, but the hammer is used to kill elephants elsewhere.

James

>
>
>    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.