Author: Marcel van Kervinck
Date: 08:25:35 12/01/97
Go up one level in this thread
On November 30, 1997 at 06:41:25, Don Dailey wrote: Don wrote: >My position is that bit boards are "probably" better in the long run but >I will be willing to change my mind if it turns out I am wrong. I also >argue that dynamic knowledge is more easily and more efficiently >implemented >with bit boards. I don't mind taking a commital position here because >I >can always change my mind later! I would like to see this discussion >continue because there may be much to be learned. Could you elaborate a bit on the use of bitboards in CilkChess? Eg, how much did you gain in raw speed by converting to them on the alphas, and how does it compare to Crafty on the same hardware? The reason I ask is the silly test we did just after the last round in the Dutch open, yesterday. If I recall correctly, my non-bitmap program searched about 120 knps on your machine in the starting position. Based on the Sparc results, I would expect it to the reach 150+ in a typical middlegame position without any effort. I don't think it can run much faster than that, however. You said your program computed at about the same speed, but that there is quite some new knowledge overhead. Can it grow there? Marcel van Kervinck
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.