Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:22:49 11/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 2002 at 15:39:51, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 19, 2002 at 15:08:13, Daniel Clausen wrote: > >>On November 19, 2002 at 14:04:42, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>[snip] >> >>>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. >> >>I'm aware of that. But I can't remember that you scientifically proved that >>"bitboards are worse to implement a good eval than 0x88". (or any other board >>representation) >> >>Actually it would be a rather stupid claim to make because there's really no way >>you could prove that. (on the other hand, religions make use of the fact that >>their claims are not provable/disprovable ;) >> >>Just posting some examples where 0x88 is better than <another board >>representation> is not a proof. In fact I'd be surprised if _your_ evaluation >>would be easier/faster to implement with bitboards than with 0x88, as it would >>mainly show that you didn't make use of the advantages of your chosen board >>representation. >> >>While there are clearly inferior board-representations (like storing the board >>internally as a BMP-file ;), generally the art is to find the advantages of the >>chosen representation and make use of them. (that's not only true for chessboard >>representation but for many other things) >> >>Sargon > >I have no idea which way is better but I believe that it is better to continue >in the way that you already started and not to try something completely >different. If that were true, we would (a) still be using computers that use decimal arithmetic rather than base-2 or floating point. (b) still be using 16 bit words at most. (c) still be writing programs in assembler of maybe COBOL. (d) not be able to use recursion. (e) <add your own favorite computer evolution idea here> Sometimes change is good. It isn't always healthy to stay "inside the box" for your entire life. I changed in 1995 and don't think it hurt me a bit... > >I do not consider a possible difference of being 33% faster as important enough >to change the structure of the program because at the same time it is possible >to get improvement in other ways. > >Uri
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.