Author: James Robertson
Date: 11:20:11 10/29/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 29, 1998 at 10:45:17, Peter Fendrich wrote: >On October 29, 1998 at 09:51:01, James Robertson wrote: > >>>After reading Bob's posts about rotated bitmaps I converted to that and got >>>some >>>increased performance but I had to change two things: >>>1) The complicated swapoff I used, wasn't doable anymore. I used >>>2) The KingInCheck became more expensive and I had to be more careful of >>>when to use it. >>> >>>Did I say two? Here is one more. >>>3) Some of the evaluation code became much much more expensive and I had to >>>rewrite that to. In fact this is still ongoing and will probably never stop >>>:) >> >>Why these problems? When I upgraded to bitmaps, I didn't completely phase out >>my >>old board representation, so almost all of my old code was reusable (although >>I >>soon decided that bitmaps could do the same thing faster) >> >>James > >That wouldn't be a good idea in my case. I changed from one bitboard >representation to another. If I had kept the old one, it would considerabley >slowed down my program. Of cource I could have kept it and phased out the old >code step by step, but that wouldn't help me much. The functions mentioned above >had to be rewritten anyway of performance reasons. >However, I think that you've a point here. We are often so anger to get the new >ideas running that we try to grab too big chunks at a time. Which results in >more bugs and longer development time in the end. >Better is to write a small piece, test it, write next piece, test again and so >on... Ok; I guess that that is what happenes when you start reading a thread halfway through. :) I thought you were upgrading from the 'traditional' representation of 64 ints to bitboards. James > >"Think big and build small" is said somewhere by someone! >//Peter
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.