Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:28:07 07/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 08, 2003 at 08:16:01, Tim Foden wrote: >On July 08, 2003 at 05:31:04, Gerd Isenberg wrote: > >>Andrew's one - as expected faster than Tim's approach >> >>so far: >>Andrew n = 1799993753, time = 5.828 >>Tim n = 1799993753, time = 6.875 >>Switch256 n = 1799993753, time = 2.671 >> >>so now i really have to work ;-) > >Ah... But what about with a data set where on average only 1.27405 bits are set >(see http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?305213)? I guess this may >bring the numbers closer together... but my simple approach will probably still >be slower. :) > >Cheers, Tim. I decided to use Andrew approach. maybe switch 256 is faster(I doubt it) but I first need to do things correctly and other ideas that may be faster have the risk of bugs. I already had a bug when I tried to use the same idea in another place because I wrote the functions wrong or I did the function in the wrong time. I do not need another source for bugs. Andrew approach seems to be simple enough to avoid bugs in implementing when switch256 does not seem to be simple and maybe I should think about considering switch256 only after I finish the job correctly with andrew's approach. Uri
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.