Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:24:52 09/25/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 25, 1999 at 13:56:29, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >We should compare speeds. > >What i do after 1.e4,e5 2.d4,d5 is >generate the move list a few million times (n times). >Then i divide the time by (n * #semi legal moves). > >#nodes a second generated at a PII450 for diep is 15.5M > >Haven't seen anyone faster so far, though most are not >reveiling their speed. I don't care about move generation speed. I can generate captures easier than you can. But my move generator is < 10% of the total time in my code, so whether that is fast or slow is moot... > >Note that if we have a merced within say 5 years that i >can implement bitboards for a few eval terms within a day by then. > >No need for rotated bb of course as i keep my current generator >and makemove. > >Majority of code is not faster using bitboards even at 64 bits >machine. > Depends on how you do it. If you think 'mailbox' then your bitboard implementation is going to suck wind. If you study the problem from a close point of view for several years, you begin to 'see the light'... casual inspection won't cut it. Any more than casual inspection will show you how to extract the most from a vector architecture..
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.