Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 02:14:14 10/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 2000 at 10:18:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 16, 2000 at 06:32:53, Pham Minh Tri wrote: > >>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. >> >>Pham > > >I see nothing that makes them harder to use than an array. Nor nothing that >makes them particularly easier to use either. > >They have certain advantages on new architectures that move 64 bits of data >around in one cycle, and they have some advantages in evaluation where you can >answer lots of questions in one AND or OR operation. On current machines, I >would say they are no faster nor slower than any other approach. On 64 bit >architectures, they begin to look better. Well if you wanted to build attacked-from tables I would not be so sure. Some programs use that kind of info extensively. If you wanted to make such a program, BB certainly wouldn't be the first option. However I know at least 1 program that builds attacks-to tables with BB and that seems to work fine. Bas Hamstra.
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.