Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Perft 5,6 {Fastest program is List}

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 17:26:48 06/04/02

Go up one level in this thread

On June 04, 2002 at 18:48:13, Dann Corbit wrote:

>On June 04, 2002 at 18:29:08, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>On June 04, 2002 at 18:20:53, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>>>Odd, I get 39 secs for Crafty, 23.5 for Yace, which is a much bigger difference.
>>>(Crafty 18.12 vs Yace 0.99.68b)
>>>Dieter did some optimisations here or so?
>>No idea.  I didn't try to make this "fast" at all.  It was designed to
>>be a debugging tool for the move generator (for me), not as a performance
>>test.  Although it has been used for that.  It is reasonable to compare
>>perft for crafty version X on machine Y vs perft for crafty version X
>>on machine Z, to compare the two machines.  Compareing two different
>>programs' perft times doesn't mean a lot unless both programs have been
>>optimized to make it efficient.  I simply wrote it to be simple.  IE I
>>would turn off a _lot_ of Make/Unmake overhead to simply run perft as fast
>>as possible...
>Beowulf's Perft was a lot faster before.  The incremental hashing stuff made a
>big hit in the perft number, but increased the overall performance.

That's the point.  Perft can be optimized, at a cost in time for the programmer.
Or it can be used simply to check move generation for bugs.  I do it for the
latter.  Crafty could be made _far_ faster if all the incremental make/unmake
stuff were side-stepped for perft.  But the effort seems to be pointless...

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.