Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 11:58:07 11/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 2002 at 14:23:35, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 19, 2002 at 14:04:42, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On November 19, 2002 at 14:00:51, Daniel Clausen wrote: >> >>>On November 19, 2002 at 13:57:02, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>[snip] >>> >>>>But more important is that they are not in the same league at 32 bits >>>>processors with knowledge. As soon as they need more knowledge they >>>>run into problems. >>> >>>Care to elaborate on these problems? (it was meant as a rhetoric question ;) >> >>i have posted some months ago and another few months before that loads >>of examples with regard to evaluation. >> >>If you browse some in the search you will find it. >> >>>>My move generation in itself eats 0.6% of the system >>>>time. My evaluation nearly all of it. >>> >>>If I'd argue similarly, I could say that 'obviously 0x88 is not well suited for >>>complex evaluations because your eval consumes so much time in it'. :p >>>Sargon >> >>if i would do it in bitboards what i do in evaluation then i would get >>5 times slower or so, then some bugfixing with inline assembly from >>Nalimov will perhaps take that back to 4 times :) > >That's because you can't write code... not because bitmaps don't work >well... > >You need to understand "cause" and "effect" a bit better, IMHO... > > > > >> >>Best regards, >>Vincent Your move generator still is a factor 2 slower despite inline assembly which is written down for both white and black and for every piece, where i do with a few general rules. Who is saying here who is the better programmer? Also your bad memory again has forgotten the loads of examples given months ago and again i give another one now to Gerd here, which show that also at 64 bits, bitboards are slower. Best regards, Vincent
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.