Author: Carlos del Cacho
Date: 15:23:53 07/03/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 03, 2001 at 16:59:17, Dann Corbit wrote: >On July 02, 2001 at 18:58:07, Carlos del Cacho wrote: >[snip] >>Anyway there are dubious claims in that document, I don't see how you can make a >>move generator 30 times faster than crafty's, so I doubt if he ever got to >>implement it, and if he did what was the HW difference he used to measure it. >>This person sounds like a day dreamer to me. > >I suspect his evaluation will do nothing at all besides material. >At any rate his move gerator target is 10M NPS. >Crafty's move generator is 2M NPS. That's only 5 times faster. I was just quoting the author here. Five times is feasible but I don't think this is possible: " In assembly language I have succeeded in writing a legal move generator that is THIRTY TIMES FASTER than Crafty!! " >And he plans to use DDR memory, which is twice as fast. That means 3x faster >should do it. That's not a merit of the software. I can plan to use a 1 GHz CPU and compare the results with Crafty running in a plain Pentium Pro. >I would not be surprised if it was capable of that. Doesn't mean it will play >good chess though. > >A good move generator is a necessary condition for a world-beater program. But >it's nowhere near sufficient. I'd say all you need is a move generator. There are things that are much more important and you can always go back to do the tweaking when you get something that plays fine. And overoptimizing it is just a waste of time. > >Just like tactics. If your program is not good tactically, it won't play very >well. But it can be a tactical monster and still get shredded by shredder. > >Cowabunga, shred-head. > >[snip]
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.