Author: John Coffey
Date: 14:48:18 01/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 1999 at 16:58:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 13, 1999 at 12:52:21, John Coffey wrote: > >> >>>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... >> >>I wanted to take into account who controls the most number of squares as a >>part of my evaluation. Do you think that this can be answered with bitboards? >>Perhaps some programs already do this? >> >>john coffey > > >Most any question you can answer with an offset program I can answer with >bitboards. I did this early in the development of crafty, but I didn't like >the result, any more than I liked using "mobility" for pieces. I found other >scoring terms were more effective and cheaper to compute... The trouble with control of squares is that you have to take into account the values of the pieces that attack a square. i.e. a pawn could control a square. I had figured out that I could use bits for each type of piece that attacked a square, where pawns use high bits and kings use low bits. Add the bits for each side and the side with the highest number (more or less) controls the square.
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.