Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 15:44:28 11/19/02

Go up one level in this thread


On November 19, 2002 at 16:22:49, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>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...

Sometimes change is good.
The question is how much I can expect to earn.

I believe that I can expect to earn more from better search rules then from
learning both bitboards and other ways and to see which way is faster.

I expect improvement of more than being 33% faster from better pruning rules in
the next months.

Uri



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.