Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:53:48 11/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 2002 at 16:51:35, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On November 19, 2002 at 16:42:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>in other words, no evidence is acceptable? > >I can't think of much that would do, certainly >nothing that has been produced here. There are >several ways I could be convinced without a real >proof, even. > >If you, say, would rewrite Crafty in classical form, >spend time optimizing it, invite Vincent to do the >same and he ends up with something that's decidedly >slower than what you have now, then that's pretty good >evidence that for a program like Crafty bitboards are >the superior approach. > >If the top 5 engine programmers speak out and all say >they use or switch to bitboards I'm also going to be >convinced it's the superior approach. > >If after the switch to 64-bit hardware you end up >smashing me and Vincent by a significant margin then >I'm also going to be convinced. > >Lots of ways to convince me, as long as they're not >based on hand-waving (you like that word, don't you?) > >-- >GCP Yep and I don't do it. I've given you _real_ numbers. Of course you can _always_ run the test that Bruce and I did for yourself. Crafty's source is available, so you have access to a bitmapper. Yours isn't a bitmapper so you have access to one that is not. Compile both using the same compiler on a 32 bit machine and on a 64 bit machine and see if one speeds up _more_ than the other. If so, you have to explain why that isn't attributed to the 64 bit architecture...
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.