Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:51:01 10/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 08, 2003 at 06:33:00, Sune Fischer wrote: >On October 07, 2003 at 20:19:00, Russell Reagan wrote: > >>>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. > >What are the many advantages of 0x88-like systems? The most important are "is square xxx on the same diagonal as square yyy" along with "is square xxx off the edge of the real board?" There are similar questions easier to answer with bitboards. > >>>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. > >Yes, I think it has little to do with playing strength at any level. >It might have some to do with programming strategy and philosophy though. > >-S. Nah, vincent has already proven that if you have the fastest move generator, you _definitely_ have the best chess engine. There is no other measure of importance. :)
This page took 0.01 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.