Author: blass uri
Date: 11:57:35 06/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 17, 2000 at 14:40:47, leonid wrote: >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. I think that extensions is the reason. Another possible explanation could be the evaluation function but I read that hiarcs does not use most of the time about evaluation. Uri
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.