Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:10:46 11/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 2002 at 18:44:28, Uri Blass wrote: >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 So? Continue on for a while. But one day, when you start to run low on ideas, then the bitmap approach might become more attractive... and give you a fresh outlook on an old problem.
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.