Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:53:31 02/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 25, 2001 at 05:39:55, TEERAPONG TOVIRAT wrote: >On February 24, 2001 at 19:07:51, James Swafford wrote: > >>On February 24, 2001 at 00:57:05, TEERAPONG TOVIRAT wrote: >> >>I'm also interested in this comparison - if you come up with something >>meaningful I'd like to add it to my website. >> > >Actually,I work on a checkers program. A lot of people here said >they are dissapointed with bitboard for chess program. Yes, chess >has 64 squares but checkers has 32 squares. At first, I think >it must be perfectly matched with checkers . The result... >My old program , single array of char [55], seems like board[12x10] > in chess, is faster approximately 100% of any position. >Of course,only gen(),makemove(),unmakemove(). > >>Comparing functions is ok, but it'd be much more interesting to >>compare to whole engine (including make/unmake and the eval). >>There are neat things you can do with bitboards in the eval with >>simple boolean operations. > >I agree. Now,I try to make use of its advantage in eval(). >But, checkers has much less complicated eval() than chess. >I'm not sure the advantage can compensate its drawback. > >Thank for your comment. >Teerapong Are you using the unique ability of bitmaps to generate captures only? Or in your case, generate only jumps first? In chess this is a big saver since the q-search is only captures for me. This avoids having to skip over non-capture moves which takes time...
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.