Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:19:43 06/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 03, 2003 at 12:35:03, Russell Reagan wrote:
>On June 03, 2003 at 11:46:53, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>>for (i = 0; i < 64; i++) {
>>> // code goes here...
>>>}
>>
>>Most don't do this even without bitboards. The easy approach is to have
>>an array of 32 elements, with the first 16 containing the square numbers
>>for white pieces and pawns, and the last 16 the same for black. As pieces
>>are removed, the two lists become shorter, and the length of the loop is
>>dropped from 64 to 16 to start with, and lower as pieces are removed.
>
>I know most use the approach you mentioned, but that can get messy, and can be
>error prone (at least in my experience). You have to update more things and
>maintain more things (much more than two bitboards worth). Maybe the array
>approach is a little faster, but...someone once said that speed isn't where the
>advantage lies for bitboards. Sound familiar? :P
Yep. But if you don't have _all_ the bitboard stuff, just one showing where
all pieces are located, then most of the advantages are lost...
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.