Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: significant math

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 15:03:28 11/19/02

Go up one level in this thread


On November 19, 2002 at 16:59:29, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:

>On November 19, 2002 at 16:53:48, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>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...
>
>I thought this thread was about current performance rather than future
>performance. I've posted my opinion about bitboard vs nonbitboard as
>soons as 64-bit machines become common somewhere below this post.
>
>--
>GCP


I've _never_ said bitmaps are faster on X86, and I don't recall that being in
this thread
anywhere.  I have _always_ claimed that bitmaps seem to be about as good as any
other
approach on a 32 bit machine.

Then we started the 64 bit discussion at some point.  I seem to remember that
you did,
on several occasions within this thread, take issue with the statement "bitboard
programs
gain more from moving to a 64 bit architecture than non-bitboard programs do."




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.