Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:36:20 09/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 18, 2004 at 14:16:03, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >On September 17, 2004 at 20:52:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 16, 2004 at 21:20:50, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>What is faster doing a loop on the 1's of a bitboard or doing a loop on array of >>>integers >>> >>>I simply consider to change my knight move generator to bitboards >>> >>>Today I have array >>>int knightmove[64][8] and the question is if getting >>>knightmove[c3][0],...knightmove[c3][7] is faster or slower than getting the same >>>squares by calculating the 1's of knightoption[c3] in order to get the squares >>>that the knight can go. >>> >>>I also consider to have bitboard knightcapturewhite[64] knightcaptureblack[64] >>>and knightquietmoves[64] that are going to be updated incrementally after every >>>move and the question is what is the price of this in speed. >>> >>>Do people who use bitboards have experience with it? >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>You are asking the wrong question. Bitboards are simply a way of doing >>_everything_ differently from array-based board representations. There are >>gains and losses (of course you should ignore the naysayers like you-know-who as >>bitboards can and do work fine). But when you start to mix things, the only way >>to see if it is faster is to simply implement and test. That's what I did with >>rotated bitboards when I first thought of the idea. It seemed like a good idea, >>but there were issues to overcome... It takes time and testing... > >If one doesn't want to go full bitboard for everything, >then partial bitboard for evaluation... > >Speed of evaluation without the hassle of rotation... > >Stuart Then you have to convert mailbox to bitboard at _every_ q-search position. That won't be fast...
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.