Author: James Robertson
Date: 18:33:49 12/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 20, 2000 at 12:31:51, Thomas Mayer wrote: >Hi Dann, > >>Phalanx has a really slow motor. Usually 100K NPS or so. Gullydeckel has a >>barn-burner -- often well over one million NPS on my machine. If we could >>couple Gullydeckel's move generator with Phalanx's eval, it might rule the >>world. >you allways tells us how incredible good Gullydeckel's move generator is... >can you give us some numbers ? >Here is my testing position, Vincent Diepeveen has put my nose on it to look how >things are going: > >[D] rnbqkbnr/ppp2ppp/8/3pp3/3PP3/8/PPP2PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq d6 0 3 > >When I start with Quark, Quark produces in this position about 3.500.000 moves >per sec. (measured this just with a huge for loop and allways call move gen and >after that calculate created moves divided by seconds) >At the moment Quark creates 8.300.000 moves per second here on PII/400 >Vincent Diepeveen said to me that Diep creates on PIII/450 here 15.500.000 moves >per second and crafty about 7.700.000 moves per second on PIII/450 >Can you give us some numbers what Gullydeckels move generator does here... >(Quark and Diep have 0x88 board representation, Crafty we all know... :) > >Greets, Thomas Are you counting moves created per second, or calls to MoveGen() per second? James > >P.S.: Working on move gen is worth a lot, it is incredible, what the improvement >brings in kNPS... And also it is really funny... At the beginning I thought my >move gen is really fast... then comes Vincent... some hours coding brings me to >7M moves... and at this point I had no idea how to get faster... but it seems to >be never over... I think also for Quark there is still much to improve here... >when I only think about Vincents number... :)
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.