Author: Vincent Lejeune
Date: 20:24:46 12/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 31, 2003 at 17:55:05, Ed Trice wrote: >On December 31, 2003 at 14:17:48, Russell Reagan wrote: >> >>The problem here is that you can test that exact same thing in Crafty (and other >>programs), and they don't come anywhere close to your numbers. Crafty generates >>22 million moves per second on my Athlon 2GHz, while you generate 140 million >>per second on a PIII 2GHz (which I've never heard of, but whatever). > >I have one of the last Pentium III's ever cranked off of the line. The early P4 >architecture added 124 instructions for streaming video to the chipset, which >clobbered the performance of even integer math. The new 20 stage pipeline of the >P4 with a branch prediction unit that was not that good mean the entire pipeline >might need to be flushed if there was a prediction miss at step 19! For this >reason, slower P III's were outperforming the (at the time) relatively new P4's. > >The test I did was as follows: > >1. Clear the board. >2. Loop from a1 to j8 (80 square board.) >3. Place a knight on the square from #2. >4. Call the move generator N times (N large)and increment the nodes. >5. Place a bishop on the square from #2. >6. Call the move generator N times (N large) and increment the nodes. >7. Place a rook on the square from #2. >8. Call the move generator N times (N large)and increment the nodes. >9. Place a chancellor on the square from #2. >10. Call the move generator N times (N large)and increment the nodes. >11. Place an archbishop on the square from #2. >12. Call the move generator N times (N large)and increment the nodes. >13. stop the timer >14. compute nodes/time taken. > >Basically, all of the moves are precomputed indices into 80 bit attack arrays. >These are generated as fast as you can lookup data in a list. > >Given that was the case, I wanted to know how fast the lookup speeds were. That >number ended up being 140 million nodes per second on my test system. > >Didn't I even email you the executeable? > > >Even Yace >>(an array based program, AFAIK) gets *only* 46 million moves per second on my >>machine. Your numbers even blow away Crafty's numbers from a quad Opteron, which >>generates 38 million moves per second. >> >>Since you are using 80-bit bitboards, your numbers should be slower than Crafty >>using 64-bit bitboards, and certainly slower than an array based move generator. >>Something doesn't add up. That seems to be very common with things you write. >>You seem to be mainly interested in self promotion and appearing to know what >>you're talking about regardless of what is fact and what is fiction. > >I agree that something does not add up, but why do you run to the extreme end of >throwing out personal attacks? If something does not add up, why not try to >understand what is different in our metrics. > >I demonstrated what I was testing, explained it fully, sent you the test program >(I think it was you) and never heard back from you. > >Where is this anger coming from? > > >>Take your webpage here for example: >>http://www.gothicchess.org/gothic_vortex.html >> >>You write: >> >>"On the minus side, an Array Move Generator is many times slower than a Bitboard >>Move Generator. A recent experiment showed that the Bitboard Move Generator in >>the Gothic Vortex program is about 30 times as fast as the Array Move Generator >>found in the Zillions-Of-Games engine." >> > >This is easy to reproduce, and it is not fiction. The Zillions program displays >its node count. Given Y different positions from different Gothic Chess >openings, and Z amount of time per position, you get a node/second average. > >As Zillions is the only other engine that plays Gothic Chess, what else could I >compare my own numbers with? > >When I took my nodes/second average and compared it to Zillions, the division >produced a number 30 point something. That means that Gothic Vortex is 30 times >as fast. > > >>I'm pretty sure every experienced computer chess programmer would disagree that >>array based move generators are many times slower than a bitboard move >>generator, especially on 32-bit hardware. >> >>You frequently compare your program with Zillions of Games, and then declare >>your program to be a monster because it beats it 3-0, or runs 30 times faster, >>or whatever. This is nothing but a straw man. Zillions of Games is not optimized >>for any game. It is a general game playing program that will play any game that >>you "teach" it to play. We could all make wild claims if we found the slowest >>program on earth and made all of our claims based upon a comparison between the >>two. > >Again, I am not sure why you use the language you do. Instead of hurling >insults, why not simply write a Gothic Chess program? Why not create an array >based move generator that we can test? > >> >>So like I said, something doesn't add up. Either you're making up numbers, or >>you have some secret that is allowing you to blow away every other PC program on >>earth, or there is something else you're leaving out. > >I think this point has been touched upon already. If you can construct some >suite of tests, I would welcome the chance to compare data. > >By the way, on the latest Archbishop endgame I tested, Gothic Vortex averages >560,235 positions per second when it solves a mate in 16. I'm quite interresting in Gothic chess since you write about it here :) I think the Archbishop is a revolutionary piece since it can deliver mate alone !! > >Would you be interested in writing just a simple Archbishop and King move >generator for an 80 square board, then we can time each other's solutions for >positions we construct for these endgames?
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.