Author: Keith Evans
Date: 14:14:52 07/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 29, 2003 at 17:04:44, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On July 29, 2003 at 16:13:19, Keith Evans wrote: > >>On July 29, 2003 at 16:00:20, Tord Romstad wrote: >> >>>On July 29, 2003 at 12:49:49, Keith Evans wrote: >>> >>>>You're perft performance seems pretty decent to me. >>> >>>Indeed. I just did a similar test with my own program on a Pentium 4 2.4 GHz. >>>In the position after 1. e4 e5 2. d4 d5, my program generates 30 million moves >>>per second. I guess I could speed it up somewhat, but I don't think I would >>>come anywhere close to the speeds reported by Vincent and Angrim. >>> >>>My move genererator assigns all moves a move ordering score, and also >>>determines which moves are checks. It generates legal moves only. >>> >>>But anyway, I don't understand why people spend so much time and energy on >>>micro-optimising their move generators. Despite my slow movegen speed, my >>>program spends only 1 or 2 percent of its time in the move generator. I >>>guess most other programmers have similar numbers. >>> >>>Tord >> >>I'm personally interested in the performance of the move generator in a hardware >>chess chip where it is a large percentage of the total cycles. If it were only >>1-2% of the time then I wouldn't be interested. Of course a hardware move >>generator can generate millions of NPS when only running at say 30 MHz, so it's >>a totally different animal than a software generator running on a 3 GHz >>processor. > >hardware doesn't work like that. you cannot store the moves. > Huh? (Duh?) Where did I say that it pregenerates and stores the moves? Of course it generates them incrementally. And of course when it makes a move it does store the move so that unmake it later.
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.