Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 02:27:05 08/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 04, 2002 at 04:35:02, Russell Reagan wrote: > >I actually was thinking about all of what you were just saying earlier today. I >am looking over the source code of all of the bitboard engines that I have, and >figuring out how they all do stuff, and what operations are needed, which >bitboards are needed, and so on. I'd probably just go nuts with bitboards, have >bitboards for "pawns and king" or something, just in case I ever wanted to use >it :) > >So basically what I'm doing now is trying to determine which ones I need and >which ones are overkill. Maybe you can tell me how I'm doing. For example, I >don't think you need an "all pieces" bitboard, since you can compute it via >(whitePieces | blackPieces) which is a single OR operation (well, more on >32-bit, but...). That is cheap compared to the cost of keeping up with an "all >pieces" bitboard and incrementally updating that one at every node just to avoid >the single OR operation. So that makes me think "all pieces" is overkill. Is >that right or not? Then again, there is the need to use "all pieces" to compute >the rank/file/diagonal states. Hmm...help? I decided to keep the all occupied board, it's cheap to generate like you said, just one OR at the end of makemove. I haven't test if doing the OR on the fly is faster, of course it also depends on how often you need it. -S. >Russell
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.