Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:48:46 01/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 1999 at 11:34:19, John Coffey wrote: >On January 12, 1999 at 11:10:21, KyoJin Kim wrote: > >>How much will it be faster using bitboard than without using bitboard? >> >>Thanks. > > >Speed is a hard concept to talk about. I am no expert, but bitboards might >have more over-head while at the same time they simplify evaluation of the >position, which may save you time in evaluating. Although I don't fully >understand it, I am told the bitboards can also help in move ordering by >looking at captures first, and the improved move ordering reduces the number >of positions looked at. > >My idea of a chess algorithm was not to use bitboards because they do not >provide me with all the information that I want. Instead I was going to >keep track of a great deal of information each time a piece moved - this >approach might be slow but might also help my evalution, move ordering, and >pruning. I can't say that it will work, because it might be months before I >can put these ideas into practice. But I have started on the user interface. > >John Coffey A couple of things. Until we get full 64 bit architectures (or until we run on Digital alphas, MIPS R10000's and HP PA8000's) on PC machines, bitboards are at the very best, a break-even proposition. There is extra overhead involved, until we get to 64 bit machines... But once we get there, I don't see any disadvantage at all, and the information 'density' really favors 64 bit apps when running on a 64 bit machine. as far as 'didn't provide you with all the information you want' that might be the result of not working with them long enough. I haven't found a single question I can't answer with bitboards... and many times the question is easier to answer with them than without... particularly in evaluation where I spend a bunch of time...
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.