Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 01:34:32 06/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 2002 at 23:40:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>I think I disagree again. These are all very simple and very fast in my >>non-bitboard program as well. (2 compares + 1 branch for the first two, >>3 compares for the second one) Of course, one needs to get into the >>non-bitboard line of thinking first before being able to make it that >>fast :) >> > > >There is _no_ way to answer the "is it passed" in one operation without a >bitboard. You're starting to sound like Vincent: 'There is no way to do weighted mobility with bitboards fast'. >Unless you do some incremental computation in make/unmake to >keep up with this instead. Then it becomes an apples-to-oranges comparison >since the incremental cost has to be included. Nope. No incrementals. I'm doing a lot of trickery in the pawn-hash. -- GCP
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.