Author: Tom Likens
Date: 07:41:30 09/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 30, 2002 at 04:08:02, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: [snip!] >I'm no exception to that. I take the 5th here :) >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. It's interesting but I still use gnuchess 4.0pl80 to test changes to my program. Especially, now that 5.x has branched off, using the 4.0 series gives me a stable benchmark to compare against. Note, many of the commercial programs are *not* bitboard driven, so they are no magic panacea. The one advantage you will have using bitboards is that you have access to the source code of a strong program that uses them (Crafty). Just some general advice, no matter what data structures you end up using you should build in a number of ways to test that your engine is solid. If you decide to go with bitboards I would get the non-rotated version going first. Bitboards are hard enough initially, without rotating everying 45 or 90 degrees. regards, --tom
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.