Author: Uri Blass
Date: 10:49:20 02/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2003 at 13:28:38, Filip Tvrzsky wrote: >On February 20, 2003 at 11:43:17, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On February 20, 2003 at 11:06:28, Filip Tvrzsky wrote: >> >>>On February 20, 2003 at 09:59:13, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>I see that it does not help me. >>>> >>> >>>It's a pity, because this approach was really usefull for me, but you know, each >>>program is a different case and what works in one doesn't work in other. It is >>>hard to say why it doesn't help you. There are so many dependencies ... >>>Probably this approach claims some deeper changes of your implementation in >>>order to gain from it. The main idea here is IMO to restrict the memory access >>>... >>> >>>>I had to replace in hundreds of places in my code and after all the job I have 2 >>>>problems from the opening position: >>>>1)The code is slightly slower in the first ply(1% slower) >>>>2)The bigger problem:after more than 40 seconds I start to get different number >>>>of nodes(maybe I did a mistake in one of my replaces). >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>Of course such a change in implementation basics is very dangerous and work >>>intensive operation. I hope you have some handy testing and debugging code and a >>>backup of your original code too ... >>> >>>Filip >> >>I have backup of my original code so I guess that I will use it. >> >>I guess that it did not help me because of the fact that I use bits in a lot of >>places in my code >> >>for example >>I have some >>if (bits(m)&) in my evaluation code in order to evaluate change in the >>evaluation from moves. >> >>Maybe the problem is that I have now >>if ((bits(gen_dat[i].m)&33) in my qsearch >>I check for every legal move if it is a capture in order to decide if to extend >>it. >> >>I guess that all these & did my code slower. >> >>bits(gen_dat[i].m) was already & by definition(I could save one & by having >>gen_dat[i].m&(33<<24) >>but in that case I do the code less clear. >> >>I also use in a lot of cases expressions like >>to(gen_dat[i].m) >>Maybe the previous code gen_dat[i].m.b.to was faster. >> >>Uri > >Please,see my reply to your reply to Dezhi Zhao ... :-) >Filip If you mean to a previous post in this thread about inline function then I replied to it and you replied to me. I think that I know my mistake and I will try later to do it faster by having more constants so the code is going to be faster and smaller without being unclear. 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.