How many moves did you simulate with each? Did you have the same position/rack in both? The move generation time is affected by both board and rack and so simulation times will vary with them.
I simulated the top 10 choices for 300 iterations at 2 ply in 3:15 on my laptop at some random position. IMHO, there is 2-5X of performance improvement in quackle to be had without dropping any moves (based on general profiling, not anything I've actually implemented). I'm not sure when/if we will achieve that though. Matt --- In [email protected], "David Webb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have downloaded Quackle 0.94 but SOWPODS simulation still seems very slow. I simmed a random rack for 300 iterations, comparing Maven (using default looking ahead one move per side) and Quackle (using default two plies), and got the following results: > > Maven (using Windows ME) - 50 seconds > > Maven (using Windows XP) - 2 minutes 34 seconds > > Quackle (using Windows XP) - 18 minutes 6 seconds > > Is Quackle's comparative slowness due to 1) my computer 2) not comparing like with like 3) Quackle just being slower or 4) something else > > In order to be useful for analysing whole games in a reasonable time, a 300 iteration sim needs to take at most 90 seconds, in my opinion. Is this likely to be achievable in a future release of Quackle? (If the comparative slowness is due to my computer these speeds may of course be achievable already). > > I appreciate that speed can be increased by deleting obvious non-optimal moves but I like to see just how bad non-optimal moves are. Also I may delete an obviously non-optimal move which is in fact optimal for reasons I haven't appreciated and that would be a valuable learning opportunity missed. > > One final point is that some years ago people commented that Maven was slower than they wanted. One response was that Maven was built for old computers and did not take advantage of features in modern computers that could enhance speed. This led to an expectation amongst some people, including myself, that a replacement for Maven would offer faster simming. Were we mistaken in this belief? > > I hope this email does not come across as critical. I am delighted that a replacement for Maven is being developed, particularly one that proxy sims for winningness. Good luck in Toronto. > > David >
