Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Differences between 0x88 ,10x12 and Bitboards!?

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 0.38 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.