Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:35:31 01/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 16, 2003 at 15:56:43, Scott Gasch wrote: >Hi, > >Bruce's recent posts about code efficiency have had the opposite affect he >intended, on me at least. I've been profiling and looking to trim the fat from >my code since reading them. I have made some progress, I'm glad to report. > >As part of these experiments I enabled a material-only eval routine. Running a >raw speed test with this simple eval I noticed my engine still was only about as >fast as "fast" engines on the same machine. Engines like yace/crafty/ruffian >seem to run about as fast on my machine as my poor engine does with only a >material count eval. This indicates to me that I am generating and scoring >moves too slowly. > >So I profiled my engine with the material only eval and found that it is >dominated by the SEE code. This is partially my own fault because I have a >pretty complicated SEE that handles stuff like accurate pawn promotion scores, >pieces that can't participate because they are pinned against the king, >attackers/defenders exposed in the middle of the exchange, etc. > >My question for those of you with fast move generators, especially those using >SEEs to score moves, is how do you do it? Vincent said something to me about >not scoring all the moves generated which doesn't make any sense (at least to >me). I don't run the hash move through the SEE since I am going to try it first >anyway. And I won't bother to send PxQ through the SEE, clearly it's a winning >move. I send all promotions, apparently even captures, and apparently losing >captures though the SEE though to make sure I have a score on every move >generated, though. I do this because when I go to pick the next best move out >of the list I need to know the score of every move generated. Am I missing some >trick here? > >I have a feeling that monsoon is due for a major code revision after CCT5... I >have a bunch of ideas I want to try like: parallel search, incremental attack >tables instead of an SEE, better POSITION data structure, etc... Thanks for any >and all advice. > >Scott 1)I suspect that your SEE may be better than the SEE of fast searchers so I doubt if the fact that you can search less nodes is a real problem. 2)I think that for people with complex evaluation the speed of the move generator is not very important and my impression based on previous post of you about a position that monsoon evaluated better than the commercial programs is that monsoon has a very complex evaluation. I read that you are a bad player so I wonder how did you succeed to give monsoon a complex evaluation. 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.