Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 10:38:45 06/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 27, 2001 at 00:02:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... I port DIEP within 1 week of work to 64 bits if everyone on this planet has a 64 bits machine. > >> >>>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.