Author: SubBronstein
Date: 19:10:04 09/25/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 25, 1999 at 13:56:29, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >We should compare speeds. > >What i do after 1.e4,e5 2.d4,d5 is >generate the move list a few million times (n times). >Then i divide the time by (n * #semi legal moves). > >#nodes a second generated at a PII450 for diep is 15.5M I got 14.75M on a PII400 with my board representation. Are you looping the move generator from within the move generating procedure, or calling the procedure repeatedly? I did the latter. My guess is that looping within the procedure would give a pretty good speed-up. > >Haven't seen anyone faster so far, though most are not >reveiling their speed. > >Note that if we have a merced within say 5 years that i >can implement bitboards for a few eval terms within a day by then. > >No need for rotated bb of course as i keep my current generator >and makemove. > >Majority of code is not faster using bitboards even at 64 bits >machine. I also believe bit boards do not give a huge improvement. I wrote a bit-board semi-legal move generator, make move, undo move in assembly. Compared to the board representation I am using now, bit boards were only 10% faster in the middle game, and much slower in the end game, even when I used MMX registers.
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.