Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 02:12:59 10/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 2002 at 02:43:37, Slater Wold wrote: >On October 13, 2002 at 23:10:38, Keith Evans wrote: > >>On October 13, 2002 at 14:25:00, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >> >>>You cannot use killermoves in hardware and you cannot use hashtables > >You sure the hell can. in theory you can, but the slowdown is too big. IBM asks for the maximum nodes a second. CPUs are clocked 20 or 24 Mhz. the 20Mhz is easier to calculate with. It gets about 2 million nodes at 1 cpu. That's 10 clocks. 20Mhz / 10 clocks = 2 million nodes a second. If you add killermoves, then in move ordering phase it will require 2 extra clocks to use them, i assume storing them goes in parallel again. that's 20Mhz / 12 clocks = 1.7 MLN nodes a second. If you add hashtables that'll eat like 4 clocks in the sequential search. So then you drop to 20 / 16 = 1.25MLN nodes a second. Now i would still go for it, if it just eated 4 clocks and 2 clocks for killermoves. Killermoves give more like 20% speedup. However things get more complicated than this when the searches were very small in the hardware, and according to hsu's statements so far it seem they were. >>I don't see any technical reason why this would be true. It shouldn't be a >>problem to hack killermoves into a Belle style move generator - see what Marc >>Boule did in his master's thesis. >> >>Even Hsu mentions that hashtables are possible. (Not in the latest chat - just >>see his previous publications.) >> >>Keith
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.