Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:42:53 10/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 08, 2003 at 07:58:46, Tord Romstad wrote: >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 do not think that it is very relevant if you have a job as a programmer. I do not think that most other people do not try to teach their program the same information that you try to teach your program so comparison with other who use bitboards is meaningless. Other people usually do not try to write big evaluation like you. I also see that you are very fast in implementing ideas and only few hours after somebody post idea about the botvinik extension you already implement it with good results. > >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 doubt if that is the route you follow and I do not think that MTD is a very simple and straightforward technique. 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. The easiest way to achieve a working and reasonably strong engine without spending too much time and effort does not seem to write a big evaluation function. It also does not seem to be your target otherwise you could easily do your engine better by doing it more materialistic. 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.