Author: Tord Romstad
Date: 08:16:56 08/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 10, 2004 at 11:05:03, martin fierz wrote: >On August 10, 2004 at 10:59:29, Tord Romstad wrote: > >>On August 10, 2004 at 10:35:29, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >> >>>Plus, if you have only PST eval you should be getting 3-4M nps, so SEE probably >>>slows you down a _lot_. >> >>Yet another proof of how bad my programming skills are. With PST eval and >>nothing >>else, I get about 800,000 nps (on a PIV 2.4 GHz). Adding SEE slowed me down to >>around 750,000 nps. >> >>Tord > >and nothing else means... what? > >for example, are you computing hashkeys, and doing hashstores & hashlookups? are >you checking for repetitions? Yes to all of the above. >are you computing attack information on the way? No. >are you making some kind of complicated decision on extensions and reductions? No. This was a very simple recursive null-move searcher with no fancy pruning or reductions, and no extensions except the most elementary (checks and single replies to checks, IIRC). The eval consisted of material and piece square tables, which were updated incrementally when moves were made and unmade. After adding some additional eval terms, a whole-board swapoff function, and some simple forward pruning, I'm now down at about 450,000 nps. It's still more than twice as fast as my old program, though. :-) >and so on - it doesn't mean your programming skills are bad. > >on the other hand, fast engines probably run at around 1Mnps on your machine, >and they do all kinds of other stuff too... Yes, they do. Sometimes they are even faster than 1M n/s. Tord
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.