Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Design choices in Crafty

Author: Vincent Diepeveen

Date: 06:33:43 06/24/04

Go up one level in this thread


On June 24, 2004 at 08:31:30, Uri Blass wrote:

>On June 24, 2004 at 07:50:33, Anthony Cozzie wrote:
>
>>On June 23, 2004 at 21:03:33, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>
>>>On June 23, 2004 at 20:54:24, Russell Reagan wrote:
>>>
>>>>On June 23, 2004 at 19:52:45, Ed Trice wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>If you profile Crafty, you will find something like only 11% of the computation
>>>>>is spent on the evaluation routine. Say you were to make this code execute twice
>>>>>as fast. Then, overall, the entire program would be only 5.5% faster.
>>>>>
>>>>>To make a big performance gain, you have to attack the bottlenecks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I agree with that logic. At the same time, I think it should come with a
>>>>warning. A lot of times people mistakenly interpret this advice as, "ignore
>>>>optimization until the program is operational." I think that by doing that, you
>>>>are placing the upper limit on how fast the program can potentially be much
>>>>lower than it should be.
>>>>
>>>>Let's say I write my program, and I ignore optimization issues early on. The
>>>>program is now operational, and now I start to work on optimizations. I profile
>>>>it, hunt down hot spots, and get to the point where there are no obvious
>>>>bottlenecks. The program is still ten times slower than Crafty. Now what? I am
>>>>saddled with a poor overall design, and nothing short of a complete rewrite is
>>>>going to improve the situation.
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't think I have ever disagreed with any post more than I disagree with this
>>>one.
>>>;-)
>>>
>>>Never, never, never, never optimize a program before it is working correctly.
>>>And when I say never, I mean not ever.
>>>
>>>The only exception to this rule is in the choice of algorithms.  There is no
>>>sense picking a bad algorithm to start with.  And even if you did happen to pick
>>>the wrong algorithm, then it is not hard to change it.
>>>
>>>Your advice is bad advice.  I hope that nobody listens to it.  Permature
>>>optimization does absurdly more harm than good.  For every ounce of benefit,
>>>there are a trillion gallons of downside.  When you start programming ANYTHING,
>>>including a chess program, write clear, simple code that best expresses the
>>>algorithm in the most straightforward manner.
>>>
>>>Now, let's go farther.  Suppose that you have chosen some fundamentally bad data
>>>structures.  If your program is written in an abstract enough manner, it won't
>>>matter.  And the more abstract you make it, the less it will matter.
>>>
>>>My point:
>>>1.  Write clear code.
>>>2.  Choose good algorithms.
>>>3.  Write abstract code that hides the implementatiion details when possible.
>>>4.  When everything works well, profile it.
>>>5.  Speed up the stuff that will benefit from it.
>>>
>>>>I also have to disagree with that number, 11%. I just compiled it and ran it
>>>>through a profiler. Here are the top 20 consumers. Evaluation totals almost 50%
>>>>of the execution time. However, your point is well taken. Spending a significant
>>>>amount of time improving MakeMove() and UnmakeMove() wouldn't gain much.
>>
>>OK, in general I agree with Knuth: premature optimization is the root of all
>>evil.
>>
>>*HOWEVER*
>>
>>1. My program has _never_ been more than 3x slower than Crafty.  It is about 1/2
>>the speed of crafty right now, and I do a number of things that Crafty doesn't
>>which slow me down.  If Russell is 10x slower, he is doing something stupid
>>somewhere.
>
>I think that all programmers do something stupid somewhere(Otherwise their
>program could play better).
>
>I will be more than 10 times slower than Crafty in WCCC because of many stupid
>things that I do in movei:
>
>I can mention 3 stupid things easily
>
>1)not supporting more than one processor
>2)having too many global varaibles
>3)not having a function to generate only captures(my qsearch is done simply by
>first generating all moves and later searching for captures).
4) ordering hardware too late
5) having broken your own rule of using 2000 lines of eval code

>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.