Author: Tony Werten
Date: 03:04:27 01/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2003 at 18:19:39, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 08, 2003 at 17:22:40, Tony Werten wrote: > >>On January 08, 2003 at 16:25:44, Russell Reagan wrote: >> >>>On January 08, 2003 at 14:31:10, Ed Schröder wrote: >>> >>>>Yes Gerd, this is probably most true. I never had the time to put energy in the >>>>bit-boards technique. Do you have any idea about the number of clocks needed to >>>>extract the hanging pieces from a position using bitboards? >>> >>>I wrote a program using the same algorithms that Gerd uses for generating >>>attacks, but mine are written in C instead of using MMX like Gerd, so mine are >>>going to be slower than his. In any case, the engine is somewhat slow. It gets >>>around 70knps or maybe a little more on my PIII 733 MHz machine (compare with >> >>I don't want to bring you down but that is kind of slow. >> >>XiniX, while generating Ed's attackboards and doing full evaluation and >>everything else still gets 400Kn/s in the middlegame on a amd2000 >> >>And that's only with generating the attackboards, not actually using them to >>speed up stuff. >> >>Tony > >Movei probably makees 300-350 Kn/s but based on your definition >of nodes it is probably more nodes. > >Movei generates millions of legal moves and I know from previous discussion that >you consider part of the moves that it generates as nodes when I do not count >them as nodes. Actually, I don't either. The discussion was about futility pruning. I have the opinion that if you do all the work for a move and then prune it, you should count it as a node. I don't prune in XiniX other then nullmove. So my 400 should be 400 to you too. Tony > >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.