Author: Reinhard Scharnagl
Date: 06:32:01 09/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 2004 at 09:21:36, Peter Fendrich wrote: >On September 06, 2004 at 09:06:06, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: > >>On September 06, 2004 at 07:43:51, Peter Fendrich wrote: >> >>>What free programs have the fastest perft and what are the figures? >>>Please, If you give figures also add processor, compiler and environment! >>> >>>I want to compare with a new concept that isn't coded yet... >>>/Peter >> >>Hi Peter, >> >>see some of my (Smirf) results (still improved after measuring) at: >> >>a) without TT: [http://www.chessbox.de/Down/CRC_Test_03.txt] >>b) with TT: [http://www.chessbox.de/Down/CRC_Test_04.txt] >> >>Regards, Reinhard. >Hi Reinhard, Hi Peter, >I'm not sure how to read this. A few questions: >It says break time 75 sec but in the table I find 166 sec. Is it 166 that >I should count as the ply 7 result? Break time does mean that the test run will be stopped, when calculating a single Perft ply has used that time or more. >That will get 3195901860/166 = 19252421 n/sec Correct? >Pretty fast! > >What environment/platform? (Pentium P4 2.79 GHz, MS VStudio C++ Compiler) >Finally, is this a MoveGen that you can use in normal play or do you have "perft >tricks" in it (such as not doing MakeMove in the leaves and just count the moves >in the move list)? I do not know what you are thinking of. You can see that I am also are counting mates, which have to be detected first. But indeed, I have a move-generator which produces fully informed moves (capture, e.p., check, double check, mate ...). So using that hardly calculated information for to optimize perft is no cheating. I think, that using a pseudolegal move generator is a trick instead. >/Peter Regards, Reinhard.
This page took 0.01 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.