Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: significant math

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 0.05 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.