Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 05:04:59 10/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 07, 2003 at 21:08:43, Jaime Benito de Valle Ruiz wrote: >On October 07, 2003 at 20:19:00, Russell Reagan wrote: > >>On October 07, 2003 at 19:44:10, Jaime Benito de Valle Ruiz wrote: >> >>>Why always the same fights between the bitboard and the 0x88 (or similar) >>>approaches? >> >>I don't think anyone is fighting here. >> > >Maybe "fight" was not the right word to use here :) > >> >>>I'm sure you could make use of that 8x8 array to implement non-bitboard >>>functions where appropriate and use the bitboard ones where they're more >>>convenient, taking advantage of both approaches; I don't know why this has to be >>>regarded as a dichotomy! >> >>Unfortunately many of the advantages of 0x88-like systems cannot be taken >>advantage of using a 64-element array. >> >> >>>Anyway, why don't you use your engines to prove yourself right by getting them >>>to play better than the others? After all it's that's the aim, isn't it? >> >>Because board representation has little to do with playing strength among top >>engines, and nothing is proven if a bitboard engine beats all others. > >True. >That's my point, actually: Why arguing about the advantages of a particular >representation system if that has no evident effect on an engine performance? >We probably have the same idea in mind, but we're using different words. > >Anyway... how's your engine? I'll release a beta version quite soon... and >you'll have your chance to criticize me :) >Regards, > > Jaime zappa is a bitboard engine. I think bitboards are a good idea, but that doesn't make me blind to their weaknesses. anthony
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.