Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 05:49:58 02/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 21, 2002 at 08:10:50, Uri Blass wrote: >>>O(50) is not so big and it is not going to happen in every node in the >>>search(even in that case I believe that the difference in speed is not more than >>>10%). >> >>Your 10% seems like a wild guess, why not 50%? Do you have 500 conditionals in >>your eval or something? > >I admit that 10% was a wild guess but even twice slower in these rare cases when >in most cases it is less than 10% slower is not going to get your program more >than 10 elo weaker. > >I do not 500 conditionals in the evaluation. >My evaluation is only piece square table and the main problem is my move >generator. > >I generate only slightly more than 150,000 nodes per second in the opening >positions on p800 because my move generator generates information that is not >used today(attack tables) > >It may be 200000-300000 nodes in the endgame. > >I do not know what is the situation of your program but I guess that it is not >clearly faster(otherwise I could expect better results than the results that it >did in a tournament of new engines in the winboard forum and I am happy that my >stupid program that only has piece square table evaluation and is pronbably only >slightly better than tscp based on my tests got the 3th place out of 10). Hehe you got me there;) I didn't even know it had been tested - oh horror. Well my next version will be completely different, still too buggy to release but it's woppin' the old one (when it's not crashing:). I think 150 nps is a little low if you don't even have complicated evaluation, I'm running at 500 nps in middelgame (athlon 1 gig) with piece-square, mobility plus some simple pawn and kingsafty eval and close to 1Mnps in endgame. I know there are some spots that can be tuned, but speed is not my concern, it is the search algo I must improve. I am still doing a full-width alpha-beta without nullmove. I want to fix the simpler bugs before enhancing that part :) >My opinion is that almost all the new engines including mine are very weak and >you have more important things to worry about than a faster repetition >detection. You are right, but I just joined the discussion :) BTW: are you using a UnMakeMove function or do you use a backup? I do a backup, seems both faster and simpler than to unmake the move, I'm a little confused as to why some would unmake. -S. >Uri
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.