Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 02:03:27 12/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 17, 2002 at 04:53:10, Uri Blass wrote: >I see no contradiction. >You need to evaluate if a pawn is a passed pawn also when there is no >information in the hash tables so the question if there is a fast way to do it >by bitboard is still relevant. > >At long time control it may be unimportant but at least for blitz it may be >important. Pawnhashing fills up very fast. Whatever method you pick (assuming it's reasonable) is going to have <1% influence on how fast you run at any sane timecontrol. On the other hand, your board structure is going to influence lots more. The original poster considered bitboards good because he can use them to detect passed pawns fast. But you do not need to detect passed pawns fast, so this is not an argument. >I also need first to evaluate pawn structure(today I only evaluate double >pawns) and the question if to try to use bitboards is relevant. Yes. Your original question is very good, i.e. you are wondering what is better, not preaching your religion, err, datastructure. I would advise you to disregard anything anyone will post about which datastructure is better and to test it for yourself. -- GCP
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.