Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:59:35 08/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 17, 2002 at 14:26:55, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On August 17, 2002 at 12:45:04, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On August 17, 2002 at 12:35:52, Dan Andersson wrote: >> >>>Pretty sure of yourself, are you? Would be interested to see you prove your >>>statement. One thing first, how do you define bitboards? >>> >>>MvH Dan Andersson > >That is not enough. If nearly all of your evaluation code is >using a 64 bits bitboard based approach then i would vote for >it being called a bitboarder, if vaste majority >of code would work on 32 bits processor too, then it's obviously >a non-bitboarder. > >Any other form is a 'mixture'. > >BTW, i wonder how i get a bit out of a bitboard at the R14000 >processor. How's crafty doing that? Or probably crafty never >compiles on the thing without using zillions of branches for its Perhaps you should _look_ first. Intel has an instruction to do this. Cray has one. Alphas have one. Are you _sure_ MIPS didn't do one? I don't have any docs here, but you might be surprised... >bitboard functions? > >Hmmm, LET ME TRY!! > >>bitboards are 64 bit numbers that every bit >>has a meaning about the board >>(if you use nodes as 64 bit number it is not bitboard program) >> >>They should be also something that is not hash signature of >>the position but something that can help you to calculate >>information about the position. >> >>By this definition movei is not a bitboards based program. >> >>Uri
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.