Computer Chess Club Archives




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

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 13:25:36 11/19/02

Go up one level in this thread

On November 19, 2002 at 14:58:07, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:

>On November 19, 2002 at 14:23:35, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>On November 19, 2002 at 14:04:42, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>On November 19, 2002 at 14:00:51, Daniel Clausen wrote:
>>>>On November 19, 2002 at 13:57:02, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>>>But more important is that they are not in the same league at 32 bits
>>>>>processors with knowledge. As soon as they need more knowledge they
>>>>>run into problems.
>>>>Care to elaborate on these problems? (it was meant as a rhetoric question ;)
>>>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.
>>>>>My move generation in itself eats 0.6% of the system
>>>>>time. My evaluation nearly all of it.
>>>>If I'd argue similarly, I could say that 'obviously 0x88 is not well suited for
>>>>complex evaluations because your eval consumes so much time in it'. :p
>>>if i would do it in bitboards what i do in evaluation then i would get
>>>5 times slower or so, then some bugfixing with inline assembly from
>>>Nalimov will perhaps take that back to 4 times :)
>>That's because you can't write code...  not because bitmaps don't work
>>You need to understand "cause" and "effect" a bit better, IMHO...
>>>Best regards,
>Your move generator still is a factor 2 slower despite inline assembly
>which is written down for both white and black and for every piece,
>where i do with a few general rules.
>Who is saying here who is the better programmer?
>Also your bad memory again has forgotten the loads of examples given
>months ago and again i give another one now to Gerd here, which show
>that also at 64 bits, bitboards are slower.

My "bad memory" hasn't forgotten an important point in 52 years.  It might
forget _many_ of your "points" as most are total nonsense.  You have never
proven one single thing here.  At least by the definition of "proof" that most
us use.

(hint:  "proof" doesn't have the phrase "hand waving" anywhere in its

Feel free to _prove_ that 64 bit bitboards are slower on a 64 bit architecture
than a
32 bit program.  While you are at it you would also be proving that 32 bit
were not needed because the same "proof" would work for 16 to 32 bit

And of course, it would all be a crock anyway...

>Best regards,

This page took 0.04 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.