Author: Tord Romstad
Date: 04:58:46 10/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 07, 2003 at 16:31:40, Russell Reagan wrote: >On October 07, 2003 at 15:59:00, Tord Romstad wrote: > >>OK, I probably didn't read carefully enough before answering. To me >>virtually everything seems harder or clumsier with bitboards, but I >>always assumed it was just because I'm too stupid. > >Too stupid? Yeah right Tord :) > >I think it only depends on which tool set makes sense to your brain. Some people >(I would think most) think better in terms of the serial nature of an 0x88-like >approach, while others think better in terms of the parallel nature of >bitboards. > >Most programming for decades (until recently) has been structured and serial in >nature, so the 0x88-like approaches probably make sense to most programmers. It >took me a long time to understand the tool set that bitboards provide, and I >still feel that I'm not getting the whole picture. "Stupid" is perhaps not the best word, but I am not a programmer, and I lack the required skills to make bitboards work well (or so I think -- I have not given it a try so far). I think chess programming is simple enough that it is possible to get quite far by using only very simple and straightforward techniques, and that is the route I am following. I do not claim that this is superior to any other approaches, but for laymen like me it is the easiest way to achieve a working and reasonably strong engine without spending too much time and effort. It is still possible that I will start experimenting with bitboards if my program's perfomance on the G5 is too disappointing, though. Tord
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.