Author: Severi Salminen
Date: 05:01:01 10/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
>I know that Bitboard makes move generation the fastest, but this structure is >also one of the most complicated. However, an old post said that the generation >function is not the key of success to chess program and the author illustrated >that after his optimality (which made that function work much faster), the speed >of system increased only 1 percent. > >As a result, my question is: is bitboard really worthy for implementation when >it takes a long time to program and more time to fix all bugs (maybe several >times bigger than the rest of program)? Or is it better if we use this time to >concentrate on hash table, null move threshold and so on? I plan that I will >forget the bitboard (at least in the first period) if it help me only few >percent. Hi! I'm also starting to program a new chess program and wondering whether I should use bitboards or arrays. I found a few good sites covering the bitboard basic (including rotated bitboards) and it was _not_ very complicated! Actually I think it is a very logical and clear approach to board representation and should not be too hard to implement if you are careful enough and program only step by step. Check out this good site about Bitboards and other stuff: http://members.nbci.com/jswaff/chessprg/ At http://www.chessopolis.com/cchess.htm you can find more. I'll have to say that I started with a plain board[64] array (with assembler) so hard to say if one should first start with arrays and then move to bitboards. If you have programming experience I think you can manage bitboards right away. If anyone has tried to compare similar bitboard and array chess programs and the speed issue especially, please inform! Severi
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.