Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:17:00 12/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 2000 at 11:23:48, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >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 >> >>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... :) > >Hi Thomas, >I can't agree fully here. At least for Comet, this is not true. I have analyzed >by means of a profiler some time ago that comet consumes its time essentially in >evaluation, and partly in MakeMove (=update of data structures). The time which >is consumed while in pure mive generation is very small compared to these times. > >So I concluded that I can't really win much by optimizing move generation. Even >if I get a factor of 2 there, I will hardly notice in the end (in the final nps, >including everything). > >May be other progs waist their time elsewhere ? >Regards, Uli I agree... my move generation seems to be under 10% of the total time. If I could generate moves in no time at all, it would only be a 10% improvement overall which is not really that significant.
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.