Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 17:21:02 11/19/02

Go up one level in this thread


On November 19, 2002 at 19:20:43, Uri Blass wrote:

>On November 19, 2002 at 18:14:46, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>>On November 19, 2002 at 15:08:13, Daniel Clausen wrote:
>>
>>please mention me 1 bitboard program with a big eval.
>>  *NONE*.
>>
>>To me bitboards seems something for people who are no good
>>programmers, because they can cut'n paste from crafty and
>>go further with that.
>>
>>Optimizing gnuchess or gerbil or whatever to something real
>>fast for your needs is way more difficult of course than
>>starting with something that's working and written out in
>>detail.
>>
>>Usually people also cut'n paste the SEE and qsearch from
>>crafty then and they have something much better than they
>>can produce in a lifetime most likely.
>>
>>That's the only attractive things from bitboards IMHO for
>>several authors.
>>
>>And as long as they don't improve the evaluation a lot
>>it remains like that.
>>
>>If on the other hand you look to what representation the
>>good programmers go for, the picture is real clear.
>>
>>this has nothing to do with religion but with objective speed
>>differences. My move generator without inline assembly and
>>with general code for both sides, it is 2 times faster than
>>crafty at any x86 processor.
>>
>>That's *objective* measurements.
>>
>>My SEE is better than the one from crafty, picking up more
>>than Crafty does in the SEE. Very objectively provable.
>>
>>The list goes on and on.
>>
>>Most important thing however IMHO is that the source from
>>crafty is free. If mine was free, everyone would start with
>>DIEP and go further from there. I'm 100% sure of it.
>>
>>We saw this before.
>>
>>When GNUchess was the strongest freely available source code,
>>people started with that crap.
>>
>>I wrote nearly every byte of my move generator. *every* byte.
>>
>>It took me years to make a fast generator. Not everyone is
>>that great.
>
>If you worked years on optimizing part of the program that you use less than 1%
>of your time then it means that you are not a good programmer.
>
>Good programmers prefer to optimize the important parts.
>
>Working years to do your program 1% faster by a faster move generator seems to
>me a big mistake.
>
>Uri


:)

of course not _all_ will get your point.

:)



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.