Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:39:11 07/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 02, 2001 at 05:12:48, Andrew Williams wrote: >On July 01, 2001 at 18:50:55, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On July 01, 2001 at 18:07:48, Andrew Williams wrote: >> >>>On July 01, 2001 at 17:52:48, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>> >>>>On July 01, 2001 at 13:21:04, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 01, 2001 at 12:58:40, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 01, 2001 at 06:44:23, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On July 01, 2001 at 05:09:45, stefan wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>see also >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>http://members.tripod.com/~RyanMack/hypertech.htm >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If it is truth than it seems that we are going to see a progress of more than >>>>>>>200 elo in comp-comp games only because of better software for the PIII >>>>>>>hardware. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I have not enough knowledge to understand if he is right >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Uri >>>>>> >>>>>>If the move generator in my own program took zero time it would increase in Elo >>>>>>points by maybe 20 or 30, and that's probably high. >>>>>> >>>>>>bruce >>>>> >>>>>You are right that only move generation is not enough but the point is that I >>>>>understand that the data structure helps to do everything faster. >>>>> >>>>>He suggests in the last 3 lines when you click on the link that the program can >>>>>see 10,000,000 nodes per second with the evaluation function >>>>> >>>>>If you rememeber that nodes is only legal move because he talked about legal >>>>>move generator then the result is more impressive. >>>>> >>>>>We need to wait and see if he is right. >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>>I looked at it and I think there's a good chance he's full of beans. I don't >>>>think he has the first clue about how to build a chess program, and I think that >>>>he thinks that if he gets the first small part of it done perfectly, the rest >>>>will just naturally follow. >>>> >>>>I don't know if there is a name of this kind of thing, but I see this attitude >>>>expressed often. On the one hand, we have builders, on the other, we have >>>>visionaries. But this kind of person is neither. You have someone who knows >>>>nothing about a problem, but is confident that the problem is trivial and can be >>>>easily solved (by them in particular), and when you question them about the >>>>aspects they haven't considered and can't cope with, they blow smoke and make >>>>promises they can't keep. >>>> >>>>Perhaps a term for these people is "marketing". >>>> >>>>bruce >>> >>>.. Or "children" -> http://members.tripod.com/~RyanMack/aboutme.htm >>> >>>:-) >>> >>>Andrew Williams >> >>Even if his assumptions are wrong I find his knowledge very impressive for a 16 >>years old(assuming that he is not lying). >> > >I agree. He wouldn't be the first teenager who was clever but not wise. > >>I also work on a legal move generator but I know nothing of assembler and >>nothing of optimizations for pIII. >> >>My legal move generator is not perfect(it does not consider legal en passant >>moves in replies to check and it considers every illegal en passant capture when >>the pawn is not pinned) but it is good enough to calculate perft 6 in the >>initial position and perft 5 in another poisition correctly. >> >>I have some ideas how to improve significantly the speed of my move generator >>but I have no estimate exactly how much it is going to be faster and my ideas >>are only about the algorithm. >> >>Today it is about 10 times slower than Crafty in calculating the perft function. >> >>I do not think to continue with a chess program before I will be satisfied with >>the speed of calculating the perft function. >> >>Uri > >I wouldn't care too much about that. Suppose you have loads of stuff in your >makemove() that makes it possible to achieve very good move-ordering. Or that >makes it very quick to evaluate a node (because much of the work has been done >earlier). Then your perft speed will be terrible, but your program could be >excellent. > >Andrew Thanks, but I know that there are programs that generate only legal moves that are faster than Crafty in calculating perft because they do not have to make the last move. My program does not have to do the makemove() in order to know the number of legal moves in the last ply because this number is calculated in the gen() function but inspite of this it is about 10 times slower than Crafty. The main problem of my program is the fact that my function of updating the arrays is not good and I calculate again a lot of information that is not changed. An example: after a pawn move like a2-a4 the directions that c4 is seen and the square that c4 is seen are the same but my program does not know it. Note that you need to update this information after b2-b4 beacuase it is possible that there is a Rook in a4 before the move but my program in this case also does a lot of other calculations that are not relevant. It does not construct all my arrays from scratch except after enpassant move or castling(this is also something that needs to be corrected) but it does a lot of useless computations. Uri
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.