Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 01:08:02 09/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 29, 2002 at 18:09:02, Arshad Syed wrote: >Would bitboards be the best way in which to represent piece positions or would >this be inefficient since the current Pentiums use 32 bit architecture. Also, >which would be the best alternate way, if not bitboard currently? > > >Thanks in advance, >Arshad Bitboards at 32 bits processors indeed are way slower. About 2 times. But there is practical issues here and that's that not many are going to give you for free a datastructure+source code which is faster. Yet many different ways are there to get that 2 times faster. Actually it used to be 2.2, but the bitboards have even inline assembly stuff which works better and better for it. So you need to be a real good programmer to get faster than that, amazingly all the morons here in this newsgroups cannot program, the ones that can do not post what they do. I'm no exception to that. But with regard to speed: in assembly the 0x88 is very fast. Otherwise much easier to make than all this is using the gnuchess 4.0 datastructure (don't get the raped 5.0 versions which are bitboards, but the 'int board[64]' stuff from before that). It's very easy and can be speeded up by good programmers a lot. I really would go for that gnuchess 4.0 stuff, simply because your thing gets a lot easier to write in other parts of the story.
This page took 0.01 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.