Author: Uri Blass
Date: 10:49:20 02/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2003 at 13:28:38, Filip Tvrzsky wrote: >On February 20, 2003 at 11:43:17, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On February 20, 2003 at 11:06:28, Filip Tvrzsky wrote: >> >>>On February 20, 2003 at 09:59:13, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>I see that it does not help me. >>>> >>> >>>It's a pity, because this approach was really usefull for me, but you know, each >>>program is a different case and what works in one doesn't work in other. It is >>>hard to say why it doesn't help you. There are so many dependencies ... >>>Probably this approach claims some deeper changes of your implementation in >>>order to gain from it. The main idea here is IMO to restrict the memory access >>>... >>> >>>>I had to replace in hundreds of places in my code and after all the job I have 2 >>>>problems from the opening position: >>>>1)The code is slightly slower in the first ply(1% slower) >>>>2)The bigger problem:after more than 40 seconds I start to get different number >>>>of nodes(maybe I did a mistake in one of my replaces). >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>Of course such a change in implementation basics is very dangerous and work >>>intensive operation. I hope you have some handy testing and debugging code and a >>>backup of your original code too ... >>> >>>Filip >> >>I have backup of my original code so I guess that I will use it. >> >>I guess that it did not help me because of the fact that I use bits in a lot of >>places in my code >> >>for example >>I have some >>if (bits(m)&) in my evaluation code in order to evaluate change in the >>evaluation from moves. >> >>Maybe the problem is that I have now >>if ((bits(gen_dat[i].m)&33) in my qsearch >>I check for every legal move if it is a capture in order to decide if to extend >>it. >> >>I guess that all these & did my code slower. >> >>bits(gen_dat[i].m) was already & by definition(I could save one & by having >>gen_dat[i].m&(33<<24) >>but in that case I do the code less clear. >> >>I also use in a lot of cases expressions like >>to(gen_dat[i].m) >>Maybe the previous code gen_dat[i].m.b.to was faster. >> >>Uri > >Please,see my reply to your reply to Dezhi Zhao ... :-) >Filip If you mean to a previous post in this thread about inline function then I replied to it and you replied to me. I think that I know my mistake and I will try later to do it faster by having more constants so the code is going to be faster and smaller without being unclear. Uri
This page took 0.01 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.