Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 12:15:56 11/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 2002 at 15:04:15, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On November 19, 2002 at 14:34:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >Significant is that you first slow down your thing 2 times >at a few points in order to get 33% faster later at the >same points you first got 2 times slower. You are forgetting that even with the 2x slowdown you talk about, bitboards are still breaking even with your method. So it's your_method + 33%, not (your_method / 2) + 33% as you would like it to be. >Anyway, by the time we all have 64 bits machines writing >chessknowledge in bitboards is too cryptic anyway. Programming >in a neat general way is always preferred above the bitboard >hacking with inline assembly and things like writing only >simplistic 1 line patterns IMHO. Bitboards are extremely more elegant IMO, but that is only a matter of opinion, and serves no purpose to "proof" one method better than another.
This page took 0.03 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.