Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: significant math

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 07:59:33 11/20/02

Go up one level in this thread


On November 20, 2002 at 04:00:20, Dan Andersson wrote:

>>Actually, at least for the case of Crafty and Yace, there is a good basis for
>>comparison.  They are relatively equal in playing strength.  So any advantage in
>>bitboards over arrays or vice-versa would seem to be _very_ minimal, which is
>>what I have generally claimed for 32 bit machines...
>>
>The problem with that position are many. But one fundamental flaw is that they
>may use different extension and pruning conditions. Thus they might look at
>trees that are wildly different. And the rough equality of playing strength may
>have no more than a tangential relation with whatever data representation is
>used.
>
>MvH Dan Andersson


Why does this matter?  The point is that a bitmap program and a non-bitmap
program
are playing with equal skill.  If you want to take the position that one of the
programmers
is very good and the other is very bad, that's ok.  I know my programming skill.
 I can't
speak for anybody else.  So that leaves us at "yace is poorly written and Crafty
is well-written
so the comparison is invalid."

I don't buy that...

I simply think that on the x86 architecture, the two approaches are equivalent.
Fritz seems to
support that contention.



This page took 0.09 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.