Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:27:16 04/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2000 at 00:12:06, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On April 23, 2000 at 23:24:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>BTW, this could probably run faster if I wanted. I never intended the perft > >I'm sure mine could run faster if I wanted, too. My intent was not to test >manliness, it was to see if anyone is doing much better than I am. > >>generator is not screwing up' test... A better test here is to pick a >>position and generate or generate/make/unmake moves over and over, without >>doing the recursive calls and so forth... or the legality checks, etc... > >I disagree. If nothing else, this allows the entire benchmark can run out of L1 >cache, regardless of what typical memory footprint is. > >>Here is output for Peter's position, generating the moves from the same position >>N times, then generating/making/unmaking the moves M times: >> >>White(1): perf >>generated 48000000 moves, time=7.57 seconds >>generated 6340818 moves per second > >Mine does this in 4.911 seconds = 9.77M mps. > >>generated/made/unmade 48000000 moves, time=38.66 seconds >>generated/made/unmade 1241593 moves per second > >Mine does this in 24.096 seconds = 1.99M mps. > >So now the question is, why is my program 10% slower than yours for the >recursive test when it's about 60% faster at the tests that you proposed? Hmmm. > >-Tom No clue. You are obviously doing something in the recursive test I am not. Don't forget those times are 400mhz times (PII also, 66mhz FSB). Perhaps there is a hardware difference as well.
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.