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 0.01 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.