Author: Keith Evans
Date: 20:57:36 07/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 29, 2003 at 23:47:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 29, 2003 at 18:18:31, Keith Evans wrote: > >>On July 29, 2003 at 17:35:01, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On July 29, 2003 at 17:14:52, Keith Evans wrote: >>> >>>>On July 29, 2003 at 17:04:44, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 29, 2003 at 16:13:19, Keith Evans wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 29, 2003 at 16:00:20, Tord Romstad wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On July 29, 2003 at 12:49:49, Keith Evans wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You're perft performance seems pretty decent to me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Indeed. I just did a similar test with my own program on a Pentium 4 2.4 GHz. >>>>>>>In the position after 1. e4 e5 2. d4 d5, my program generates 30 million moves >>>>>>>per second. I guess I could speed it up somewhat, but I don't think I would >>>>>>>come anywhere close to the speeds reported by Vincent and Angrim. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>My move genererator assigns all moves a move ordering score, and also >>>>>>>determines which moves are checks. It generates legal moves only. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>But anyway, I don't understand why people spend so much time and energy on >>>>>>>micro-optimising their move generators. Despite my slow movegen speed, my >>>>>>>program spends only 1 or 2 percent of its time in the move generator. I >>>>>>>guess most other programmers have similar numbers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Tord >>>>>> >>>>>>I'm personally interested in the performance of the move generator in a hardware >>>>>>chess chip where it is a large percentage of the total cycles. If it were only >>>>>>1-2% of the time then I wouldn't be interested. Of course a hardware move >>>>>>generator can generate millions of NPS when only running at say 30 MHz, so it's >>>>>>a totally different animal than a software generator running on a 3 GHz >>>>>>processor. >>>>> >>>>>hardware doesn't work like that. you cannot store the moves. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Huh? (Duh?) Where did I say that it pregenerates and stores the moves? Of course >>>>it generates them incrementally. >>> >>>but i hope you realize how hard it is to order moves when all you have is 1 >>>bound that gives how far the incremental generation is. >>> >>>but if you compare speeds. >>> >>>Say that each move costs 1 clock. that's 30 million moves a second at 30Mhz >>>right? >>> >>>Brutus ran at 2002 WCC at something like 33Mhz. So that's 33 MLN a second. >>> >>>DIEP i generate way more than 33MLN a second at the 1.6Ghz K7 i had back then. >>> >>>At 2.127Ghz it is about 72MLN. this with slow RAM storage. It's probably >>>relatively faster at a P4 generating moves because of the fast L1 cache there >>>and everything runs within trace cache when doing a loop for a few millions of >>>times. >>> >> >>Can you do perft at 72 million NPS? (Actually traverse a tree?) If not then >>you're quoting something different. You could use Chrilly's 7 cycle/node number >>which should include everything to generate, make, and unmake moves. So at 33 >>MHz that would be 4.7 MNPS. > > >Do you not see the _utter_ futility of this discussion? He doesn't understand >hardware. He will _never_ try to understand hardware. So he will _never_ >understand what is possible, what is not possible, what is preferable, what is >not preferable, etc. It all gets mixed up with him and the point goes lost. I guess that everybody must want this thread deleted about now ;-)
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.