Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:47:50 07/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 29, 2003 at 18:18:31, Keith Evans wrote: >On July 29, 2003 at 17:35:01, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On July 29, 2003 at 17:14:52, Keith Evans wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>but i hope you realize how hard it is to order moves when all you have is 1 >>bound that gives how far the incremental generation is. >> >>but if you compare speeds. >> >>Say that each move costs 1 clock. that's 30 million moves a second at 30Mhz >>right? >> >>Brutus ran at 2002 WCC at something like 33Mhz. So that's 33 MLN a second. >> >>DIEP i generate way more than 33MLN a second at the 1.6Ghz K7 i had back then. >> >>At 2.127Ghz it is about 72MLN. this with slow RAM storage. It's probably >>relatively faster at a P4 generating moves because of the fast L1 cache there >>and everything runs within trace cache when doing a loop for a few millions of >>times. >> > >Can you do perft at 72 million NPS? (Actually traverse a tree?) If not then >you're quoting something different. You could use Chrilly's 7 cycle/node number >which should include everything to generate, make, and unmake moves. So at 33 >MHz that would be 4.7 MNPS. Do you not see the _utter_ futility of this discussion? He doesn't understand hardware. He will _never_ try to understand hardware. So he will _never_ understand what is possible, what is not possible, what is preferable, what is not preferable, etc. It all gets mixed up with him and the point goes lost.
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.