Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 04:15:54 04/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 2002 at 05:46:54, Uri Blass wrote:
>In my program I thought about optimization in cases that it is important but
>only about changing the algorithm and I decided to do nothing about optimization
>of writing the same algorithm faster by assembler that I do not know.
>
>
>>Things like generating the entire movelist and then sorting the entire movelist
>>by some simple O(N^2) algorithm, and doing all this with a huge array being
>>allocated on the fly is real bad, it will cost a lot of performance.
>>
>>That was my first design, I rewrote it but I didn't find it trivial to do.
>>I simply had to change it, I couldn't stand looking at what I knew was p*ss poor
>>code.
>
>It is not clear if doing it in O(N*logN) is better because often the first move
>fail high and you can do it in O(N).
I was doing this:
GenAllMoves();
SortAllMoves();
while(moves left){
MakeMove();
search....
}
...simple but slow.
>>Knowing that what you write will be fast and efficient, is part of the fun IMO.
>>
>>I also think a lot of professional programmers do not spend enough time
>>optimizing for speed. They are too busy implementing a lot of fancy features,
>>the end result is are programs that can do a lot, but will do it slowly and use
>>a ton of memory. That means we all have to upgrade our hardware, which means the
>>programmers can become even more sloppy with their code etc...
>>
>>They all wait with the speed optimization till their program is done, but when
>>is a program done? It never is, suddenly its time to release the program and
>>they spend the last critical hours franticly debugging..
>>
>>Am I right? ;)
>>
>>-S.
>
>Speed optimization is important if you expect a factor of 10 but I do not think
>that professional programmers expect this factor
>by optimization of their program.
>
I just think the priorities on fast development and robust and "clean" codes are
higher. If the program takes 1 sec or 2 sec to do a job doesn't matter to them,
however it effectively reduces a 2 GHz machine to a 1 GHz machine.
>I am sure that they spend time about optimization in cases that they can get a
>big improvement.
>
>I also did it and before having a chess program I improved the speed of my move
>generator by a factor of about 100(I am not sure about the exact number but my
>first move generator was very slow).
>
>Uri
Yes, of cause it is not worth getting into all those optimizations until you
have decided on the design.
-S.
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.