Author: leonid
Date: 11:40:47 06/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 17, 2000 at 09:53:11, blass uri wrote: >On June 17, 2000 at 09:43:45, leonid wrote: > >>On June 17, 2000 at 08:40:11, Bas Hamstra wrote: >> >>>On June 16, 2000 at 05:41:35, leonid wrote: >>> >>>>On June 16, 2000 at 03:05:12, Bas Hamstra wrote: >>>> >>>>>For alphabeta, on a Celeron 466, doing only material: 800.000 positions /second. >>>> >>>>Thanks for your response that is perfect and clear! It correspond exactly to >>>>what I am asking to know. You indicated speed for "doing material". My name for >>>>this is "positional logic". If you still will be able to give some concret >>>>position (or two positions) with concret numbers, it will make your response >>>>even more complet. >>>> >>>>Thanks! >>>>Leonid. >>> >>>You can use the "rule of thumb" that with more evaluation you can divide this >>>number by at least 2, for a normal leaf processor. So with a normal eval I >>>expect something between 200.000 and 400.000 NPS. It depends on how smart you >>>want to make your program. >>> >>>Download Crafty and measure its NPS on your own CPU. If you program is not too >>>dumb and NPS is in the same ballpark as Crafty with full eval, that's >>>reasonable. If it has very little eval but is still 4x slower than Crafty you >>>might want to redo the "core" routines and/or datastructures. Some interesting >>>things to measure: >>> >>>- speed of make/unmake() >>>- speed of a sorted GenCaptures() >>>- speed of SquareAttacked() >>>- speed of Static Exchange Evaluation (SEE) >>> >>>Of course speed isn't everything, but on the other hand it is "comfortable" to >>>know your "core" is ok. >>> >>> >>>Regards, >>>Bas Hamstra. >> >> >>Thanks! >> >>I probably already did what you have suggested. I tried Crafty and few other >>best program that we have in Hiarcs package. There I cold see usual NPS for >>those programs. Since you indicated before number of NPS for minimax (our >>computers are almost identical) I could calculate curious factor for them. >>Apparently mentined factor is the same for them and for me, around 5. This have >>me some expectation that my moves ordering is already now close to the best one. >> >>Your number of minimax is astoundingly close to mine. On AMD 400 it is between >>800000 and 1100000. Average number of NPS (normal logic) is around 200000. For >>best games this number is around 150000. Probably still I must push a little bit >>efficency of my move ordering to reach them. > >The number of nps is different for different top programs. >You cannot learn from the number of nps if your program is good or bad. > >Uri Agree with you 100%! Only when you want compare positional logic (material echange) you are in some borderless and strange place. Even some general indication make you feel better. Perfect idea about speed of the program could be found only by solving mate containing position. Your saying about nps make me think about Hiarcs numbers. They are actually twice below others program figures. Enigmatic and beyond my explanation. As "maybe" I see only two things: 1) Perfect move ordering. Better is the move ordering lower is NPS. 2) Extensions. If somebody could explain this anomaly, it will be nice. Leonid.
This page took 0.03 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.