Computer Chess Club Archives




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

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:
>>>>>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
>>>>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
>>>>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)
>>>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
>>If that were true, we would
>>(a) still be using computers that use decimal arithmetic rather than base-2 or
>>(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
>>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.

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

This page took 0.1 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.