Author: Leen Ammeraal
Date: 22:29:10 11/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2002 at 23:38:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 27, 2002 at 19:03:38, José Carlos wrote: > >> I've been writing a new program in the last few weeks (at about 4-5 hours a >>week). I wanted to experience with bitboards (non rotated) and MTD(f). >> After writing the search structure (data representation, make-unmake, hashing, >>etc...) I've started to add some eval. >> I must say I'm really _amazed_ by how many things I can do with bitboards with >>so little effort. Attacked squares patterns, board control, mobility... all >>dynamics stuff is really easy to write (not tried statics yet). >> The program is still far from playing a whole game, and I'm not gonna have any >>spare time in the next few months, but I expect it to outplay Averno completely >>(though I'm having a horrible branching factor with MTD). >> And the best is, when you get into bitbords world, ideas come to mind faster >>than you can write them down! >> I still know almost nothing about bitboards, but I'm already impressed. >> >> Just my humble experience. >> >> José C. > > >Most people that try them, eventually end up liking them. > >Others never try them and try to convince the rest that they can't work, >they are too slow, you can't do sophisticated stuff with them, etc. > I belong to the first category (except for the term 'eventually': I liked them right from the start). I was very lucky some years ago to saw by chance a copy of the ICCA Journal in which you explained Rotated BitBoards (December 1999). But for that article, I am not sure I would ever have come to grips with bitboards to use them in Queen. Thank you very much. Leen
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.