Jacques,
Yes, I do an incremental update so the board-size should be almost
irrelevant. I'm not sure why I see any difference between 9x9 and
19x19 but it may have to do with the fact that the edge cuts a lot of
pattern seach short.
On 27-mrt-08, at 10:13, Santiago Basaldúa wrote:
Mark Boon wrote:
What I have now takes 10-15 microseconds on a 2Ghz Intel computer
to find all the patterns on a board (on average for 9x9, for
19x19 it's more like 15-20 usec)
From your difference between 9x9 and 19x19 I assume that you are
updating
the patterns of the cells after a stone was placed, (else the
difference should be 361/81 times) not a computation from scratch.
I make this sure so that we compare apples to apples. As far as the
patterns computing is
concerned, (i.e. excluding the board part verifying captures, etc.)
for
a pattern of 40 neighbors I get times easily below 500 nanoseconds
(even on an old P4 3.4 GHz) for updating 40 hashes. I explained
that about
June last year, when I wrote it. Since it passed my tests (June 07)
I have never changed a character in the code that writes the 67090 asm
lines. It is just a black box, that works 100%. Each board cell has
an updating function that knows where the board limits are, the
resulting
code (for hash 32 bit mode) is something like an endless:
lea ebx, [edx + ecx*2 - SizeOf_bccCell]
mov eax, 0967f6762h
bt dword ptr [ebx], bidx_StoneBit
cmovc eax, esi
xor [ebx + 4], eax
lea ebx, [edx + ecx*2]
mov eax, 0d83b6518h
bt dword ptr [ebx], bidx_StoneBit
cmovc eax, esi
xor [ebx + 4], eax
lea ebx, [edx + ecx*2 + SizeOf_bccCell]
mov eax, 0121001f7h
bt dword ptr [ebx], bidx_StoneBit
cmovc eax, esi
xor [ebx + 4], eax
Sorry, without a bit more explanation, the assembler code is very
hard to understand. What exactly does it do? Does it relate to a
pattern? Did you write a paper or post explaining this in more detail?
Do I understand correctly that you generate this code automatically?
I believe David Fotland does something similiarly. I have thought
about that but I wasn't sure if that was really much faster.
You are talking about updating 40 hashes. Does it mean your patterns
have fixed size? In the 500 nanoseconds, how many patterns do you
compare? One? A thousand? A million? How about rotations and color
inversions? To make it really an apples to apples comparison I'd like
to make sure we're talking about the same thing.
Mark
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
