Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:07:46 12/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 17, 2002 at 06:31:50, JW de Kort wrote: >On December 17, 2002 at 05:45:28, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On December 17, 2002 at 05:34:31, JW de Kort wrote: >> >>>On December 17, 2002 at 05:09:31, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>> >>>>On December 17, 2002 at 04:15:26, JW de Kort wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hi, >>>>> >>>>>Currently i'am using a piecelist to keep track of the locations of the pieces in >>>>>my 0x88 based program. Iám thinking about removing this list and replacing it by >>>>>a bitboard to keep track of the piecelocations of white pieces and black pieces. >>>>>I'am wondering of anybody else does this (i think some one will) and if this is >>>>>a good improvement to spees up my engine which is terrably slow. I have good >>>>>expierences with other bitboards in my program. I already use bitboard to do the >>>>>pawn evaluations and i'am thinkin about gradually removing the 0x88 stuff to >>>>>replace it with bitboards >>>>> >>>>>any help appreciated >>>> >>>>Have you used a profiler to check where the program is spending most of its >>>>time? >>>> >>>>-- >>>>GCP >>> >>>Indeed i did. Most of its time is pend in the evualation code but that is nomal. >> >>I do not think that this is normal >>Amir ban said that only 20% of the time is spent on the evaluation code of >>Junior. >> >>The question is also what you define as evaluation code. >> >>I have arrays that are used in the evaluation and I update them when I make >>moves. >> >>Should I include the time that I update the array as part of my evaluation code. >>even if the arrays are used not only for evaluation but also for extension >>rules? >> >>Uri > >Dear Uri, > >I do not dream of comparing my program to Junior. I managed to cut the time >spend evaluating by using lazy evaluation. No my program does not do a full >evaluation in a large number of positions. > >If i would do what you did i would not include the time spend updating as part >of the time spend evaluating. > >Regards > >JWK By that definition today I use less than 5% of the time in evaluation. My evaluation includes only the following factors: 1)piece square table 2)mobility when I use only the number of moves that both sides have(this evaluation can be improved but it clearly help my program and I believe that it is more important than knowledge about pawn structure). 3)double pawns(I use special arrays that are updated during making move for it) 4)some secret factor that is easy to evaluate for my program. I believe that secret 4 is something that no program or almost no program knows to evaluate and I do not want to lose my relative advantage. I have also secrets in my search algorithm but at the same time I also do stupid things that no top program does(for example I do not use hash table efficientely and I do not have some productive extensions that crafty have) so my search is still clearly inferior to the search of the top programs. My program can often beat crafty in tactics but I am not going to say that it is better than crafty in tactics inspite of the fact that it may be better than crafty in the GCP test suite(comparison in the gcp test suite is unfair because movei trains on this suite and I decided about changes in my search algorithm in some cases from learning the reason that movei failed). My target is of course to do it playing better but if I have some trick to make it clearly faster in some positions without making it slower in other positions then this trick is probably productive trick also in games(I also test in games to verify that I did not do something bad in my search rules). 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.