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? >>> >>>-- >>>GCP >> >> >>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.