Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:02:09 06/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2001 at 12:00:26, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On June 26, 2001 at 11:06:35, Dan Andersson wrote: > >that's why bitboards get still used by people at 32 bits processors. >They never took effort to measure how fast/slow it is. Or maybe we just look to the future. The world will be 64 bits in another year or two. Why stay in the stone age? People were saying the same thing about 32 bit programs 10 years ago... > >>In most cases I get all the information I need from one or a few indirect memory >>lookups, that's not too slow IMO. In my case, the Attackboard is used in >>conjunction with an efficient conventional representation. I do feel that it's >>correct to incrementally update variables that are used to either improve move >>ordering or create cutoffs. As for speed of implementation I cannot really >>compare figures, since I reuse a lot of data i.e. the behaviour will be >>asymptotic (and very fast) and not representative of its behaviour on a >>completely new position. But on closely similar positions (for example a >>sequence of positions in a line searched) it has a good performance. >> >>Regards Dan Andersson
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.