Author: James Swafford
Date: 17:29:02 07/20/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 1999 at 12:12:14, Dann Corbit wrote: >I think it would be interesting to benchmark chess algorithms: >0. Move generators -- all types >1. Alpha-Beta vs MTD(f) >2. Bitboards vs 0x88 >3. etc. > >Prepare a large crosstable and do a large number of runs with as many >implementations as possible and under as many different conditions as possible. > >Change the search time from very short searches (10 sec or less) up to half an >hour to find the bit O(f(n)) properties of the algorithms. > >A systematic study might eliminate a lot of guesswork or even tell us *where* >certain algorithms work better than others. For instance, we might use one >algorithm at a certain time control and a different algorithm at a longer time >control and yet another at correspondence chess time controls. It's interesting that you bring this up now. My program has been bitboard based for a long time, but I've always wondered just how fast it is compared to the equivalent 0x88 code. I'm in the process of developing a NON_BITMAP_MODE switch. Already the movegenerator is done, and the "TransSAN" function has been rewritten to be independent of bitboards, but there a half a dozen other functions that need some work, too, before I can "undefine" all those bitboards in my chess_pos structure. Once this is up and working I'll gladly post my results. I'm not setting any speed records, so it'll probably be a few more weeks. (I'm also porting to CygWin, but there's a lot of Windows/ MFC stuff to weed out.) -- James
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.