Author: blass uri
Date: 20:45:09 06/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 17, 2000 at 21:37:55, leonid wrote: >On June 17, 2000 at 15:03:21, blass uri wrote: > >>On June 17, 2000 at 14:57:35, blass uri wrote: >> >>>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 >> >>I remember that Amir Ban claimed that Junior is using only less than 20% of its >>time for evaluiation and that other top programs also do not use more than 50% >>of their time for evaluation. >>I asked if hiarcs does not use about 90% of its time for evaluation(I suspected >>that it is the case because of the nodes per second) and he replied that it does >>not do it. >> >>Uri > >Uri, what exactly is the "evaluation"? Material exchange? > >Leonid. evaluation is a number for every position that represents the advantage of white. For example the evaluation may be: white has 0.23 pawns advantage. 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.