# Computer Chess Club Archives

## 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.

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

```