RE: [computer-go] Pattern Matcher

[Vincent Diepeveen <diep@xxxxxxxxx>]

Mark, did you already try a PGO with your C code?

At 09:20 9-11-2004 -0200, Mark Boon wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Vincent
>> Diepeveen
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 2:52
>> To: drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [computer-go] Pattern Matcher
>>
>>
>> You claim JAVA is fast.
>>
>> I disprove it clearly as you again showed a memory trashing program.
>
>What is it with you guys? You didn't disprove anyhing. You're just talking.
>
>>
>> In cilkchess you could get away with it by slowing down the program a
>> factor 40 first. Not this time.
>>
>> It is not acceptible to use this childish programming as a 'proof' that
>> JAVA is not that much slower than C.
>>
>> It's just about a factor 3 slower, not 30%.
>
>How did the program run? Was the C version 3 times faster than Java or not?
>Did you try it? I must admit I didn't try it myself, but then again I'm not
>doubting the result Don claimed.
>
>Goliath is what I consider a typical Go program. 90% (if not 99.9%) of the
>execution is spent doing simple test-branch, integer oprations,
>array-indexing and function-calls. I'm assuming chess programs are not so
>different. I've spent a lot of time optimizing it when it was written in C,
>without actually getting to the point of worrying about assembler all the
>time. When this was translated to Java, it was first 2 times slower with the
>first JITs 7 years ago. Soon after that the difference dwindled to 30%-50%.
>Do you think Goliath was made by 'childish programming'? (Actually, I think
>it was, but not for the reasons you think something is childish.) Are you
>doubting the results I got?
>
>Now where is *your* proof?
>
>All you rant on about are assembler instructions that should be avoided, bla
>bla. Maybe that is important in chess, but not in Go. If I had to worry
>about what instructions the compiler generates I would still be fretting
>over just the basic stuff in Go. No time for that, algorithms needed to be
>discovered, code needed to be written. I regret not looking more at chess
>algorithms, as it turned out I reinvented more of it than necessary. But
>still it's all so trivial compared to the important stuff in Go. Yes, I
>didn't know it was called 'null-move', but apparently I already used it in
>Goliath 15 years ago. When did chess-programs start to use it?
>
>Worrying about instructions? It would all change with the next generation of
>CPUs, it's a waste of time. It works in chess because there speed is almost
>the *only* important thing. So the only way to get that extra little bit is
>to worry about CPU specific stuff. Not so in Go. You're talking about a poor
>hashtable implementation, not important in Go. And some of your peers seem
>to doubt it's all that important in chess even. If an instruction that gets
>used by the compiler in a Go program is slow, I simply expect that compilers
>and chip-designs will take care of it in their next generation.
>
>Yes, optimization is important. But new ideas are more important. I doubt
>*you* can write a faster ladder-routine in C than the Java one in the
>library I published, without actually looking how it's done. Most likely it
>will be 3 times SLOWER, if not more.
>
>If all you care about is chess-programming, why are you here? We're
>interested in your knowledge about chess programming, as long as there's any
>relevance to Go. And I know a lot more effort has been put into
>chess-programming than in Go, so hopefully there are bits there we can learn
>from it. But stop treating us as a bunch of backward idiots. I don't treat
>you as one, and I think some more respect would be appropriate.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>computer-go mailing list
>computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>
>
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/