Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 10:34:55 01/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 28, 2002 at 13:21:21, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>I don't understand his MMX idea, I think it's just to increase speed in 64-bit >>operations, I don't see why they should be needed here. We don't need to >>re-reverse the bitboards, they are incrementally constructed. >> >>I've made my little rook attack algorithm here on paper, it is about 20 64-bit >>operations in total - no table lookups and no if's or while's! > >then your mobility concept sucks from chessknowledge quality viewpoint. >No mobility is better than stupid mobility say some programmers, though >i disagree here partly it sure has some truths in it. LOL, you can always make me smile ;) When did the mobility enter the picture? For mobility I just count the bits on the attack boards, what else is there to do? Mobility is like 50% of my eval() just after material, could not do without it. The problem at hand is to _get_ the attack boards, not how to _use_ them afterwards. >>Think of the potential speed increase when we get 64-bit chips, the rotated >>bitboards will still be handicaped by the table lookups. > >I still couldn't buy a 64 bits processor cheap that outguns a dual K7 >system and right now i don't see how to make it either. Get used to thinking 64-bit, only a few more years and they will be here! It will be a nice boost for a lot of people, while the rest will be busy trying to figure out what hit them. >>Anyway, I'll write down the algorithm now and post it here, then you can tell me >>if it will stand a chance against rotated ;) > >for generating moves from - to for bishops and rooks, that sure is >appreciated. > >>I hope there are no mistakes, I haven't tested it. > It is done.
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.