Author: Uri Blass
Date: 22:27:36 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. I see You basically generate moves in an empty board and I suspect that it is clearly faster than generating moves in a practical game. 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.