Author: Angrim
Date: 09:05:59 07/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 28, 2003 at 22:04:38, Keith Evans wrote: >On July 28, 2003 at 20:59:24, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>What you find efficient perhaps in commercial terms is still terrible >>inefficient. Some people are happy for example with bitboard move generator in >>software. Well at 32 bits architecture i'm 2.2 times faster generating moves >>than crafty. In fact around 73 million a second after 1.e4,e5 2.d4,d5 at a >>2.127Ghz K7. >> >>That's including general code (so my move generator is not written out for white >>and black, it is general code) and of course storage of moves and ordering >>scores to the RAM. > <snip> > >Regarding 73 million moves generated a second on a 2 GHz K7 and this being twice >as fast as crafty. Where do you see these kinds of numbers? I don't see anything >anywhere close to this when running the perft test on a 3 GHz Xeon. (And I don't >think that there's _that_ big a difference between K7 and Xeon.) > >Regards, >Keith perft includes makeing moves, and checking moves for legality, so it will be much slower than just generating pseudo-legal moves for the same position over and over. I just coded up a routine to do a few million calls to get_chess_moves() from the current position and time it, and from the e4 e5 d4 d5 position I get the equivalent of 60meg moves per second on a 2ghz machine. My perft only gets equiv of 4.8 meg positions a second though, since my InCheck is pretty slow. note that my Athlon is actually running at 1.15ghz currently, so I multiplied my actual results by (2.0/1.15) to get 2ghz equivalent. Angrim
This page took 0.01 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.