Comparison of bitboard attack-getter variants

Discussion of chess software programming and technical issues.

Moderators: hgm, Harvey Williamson, bob

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
wgarvin
Posts: 838
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:03 pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Comparison of bitboard attack-getter variants

Post by wgarvin » Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:53 pm

Gerd Isenberg wrote:
wgarvin wrote:I wonder if BMI2 - PEXT is any faster than plain magic, on the chips that support it?

(My guess would be about the same)
Yes, a comparison of plain magics vs. fancy magics vs. fancy PEXT BB in a concrete chess program would be interesting. My guess in Sven's Attack64 program (no hashtables) ...

1. PEXT BB (pext, 840K lookup)
Also throw in PEXT-PDEP, which could have much smaller tables (~210 kb?). It would have 3 extra cycles of latency, and you'd have to load one extra per-square mask into a register, but unlike "table indirection" techniques it wouldn't increase cache pressure or read from any data-dependent memory address. [other than the initial lookup, I mean... it wouldn't have a 2nd, indirect read]

Henk
Posts: 5747
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 8:31 am

Re: Comparison of bitboard attack-getter variants

Post by Henk » Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:05 am

Skippers magic numbers for a rook:

a1 6421413255654250074 15
b1 13888033412225728670 14
c1 17993041225886426135 14
d1 8431303145914873310 14
e1 2312909536200034874 14
f1 7089559834495306050 14
g1 7089559834495306050 14
h1 9776329826411170775 15
a2 9776329826411170775 14
b2 10671919824395214238 13
c2 9584587689412585948 13
d2 12463247837821257675 13
e2 10933243730962491516 13
f2 2197513883701256999 13
g2 2197513883701256999 13
h2 2197513883701256999 14
a3 2197513883701256999 14
b3 7379459750028623798 13
c3 8536373658874911835 13
d3 9058873454551509880 13
e3 16978707682773041813 13
f3 6894603258312343199 13
g3 9772981940334238863 13
h3 3010061618700396727 14
a4 9138715848917472678 14
b4 8946825690166064044 13
c4 1741381422703840678 13
d4 13504618072415878493 13
e4 7717130143132042619 13
f4 10926547954513760397 13
g4 8500953853965918070 13
h4 10291852374957294340 14
a5 9204520239974666050 14
b5 12978770388625982873 13
c5 10553176281524637154 13
d5 7191134437589288727 13
e5 15814816524759944704 13
f5 17867320427295343372 13
g5 1211756347517578554 13
h5 8870414688888387961 14
a6 16598640229040220155 14
b6 7601734490633330279 13
c6 2187188739867550352 13
d6 2187188739867550352 13
e6 5396606555544269889 13
f6 5918972895738479454 13
g6 12490284533597592539 13
h6 13385874527286668706 14
a7 3493660270167347783 14
b7 6180148784847834684 13
c7 312818463456668716 13
d7 8675176639765049047 13
e7 131336951255288700 13
f7 3079430851774730831 13
g7 17117658685416164976 13
h7 12337379024030885569 14
a8 2445164764652897478 15
b8 2445164764652897478 14
c8 2445164764652897478 14
d8 2445164764652897478 14
e8 1810469178542962494 14
f8 9277518831844041090 14
g8 9277518831844041090 14
h8 280894568413730798 15

One bit less. But I did not get further than c1. These were computed using a sloppy implementation of trial and error algorithm.

a1 3829341177380969488 14
b1 3108190927689962429 13
c1 6380065235461944931 13

User avatar
hgm
Posts: 23523
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:06 am
Location: Amsterdam
Full name: H G Muller
Contact:

Re: Comparison of bitboard attack-getter variants

Post by hgm » Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:30 am

The last number on each line is the number of bits you have to keep to avoid collisions? It seems way to high. For a1 (and other corners) it should be 12, for edge squares like b1 or a2 it should be 11, and for inner squares like d3 10.

Are you sure you ignore the most-distant squares of any ray? The occupancy of the square where the ray hits the edge is irrelevant, as there would never be anything behind it that could be blocked. If you don't mask a8 and h1 away, it would be understandable why you have difficulty getting below 14 bits for a1.

So far doing it by hand seems a lot faster. My previous post already gave 12 keys (for b2-g2, b3-g3) that only need 10 bits, with a trivial prescription for making 24 more (for the inner squares)... :P

Henk
Posts: 5747
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 8:31 am

Re: Comparison of bitboard attack-getter variants

Post by Henk » Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:41 am

hgm wrote:The last number on each line is the number of bits you have to keep to avoid collisions? It seems way to high. For a1 (and other corners) it should be 12, for edge squares like b1 or a2 it should be 11, and for inner squares like d3 10.

Are you sure you ignore the most-distant squares of any ray? The occupancy of the square where the ray hits the edge is irrelevant, as there would never be anything behind it that could be blocked. If you don't mask a8 and h1 away, it would be understandable why you have difficulty getting below 14 bits for a1.

So far doing it by hand seems a lot faster. My previous post already gave 12 keys (for b2-g2, b3-g3) that only need 10 bits, with a trivial prescription for making 24 more (for the inner squares)... :P
Yes it ignores the squares on the edge.

For my sloppy trial and error algorithm I had to add four bits. Otherwise I can wait for inifinity before it completes. So that is three bits too much.

Code: Select all

int nKeys = StraightMovesDict.Count;
NBits = ((int)Math.Log(nKeys, 2)) + 4;

        public ulong StraightOccupancy(CPosition pos)
        {
            ulong occupancy =    (LeftMoves & ~pos.ChessBoard.ColumnsBitBoard[0])
                               | (RightMoves & ~pos.ChessBoard.ColumnsBitBoard[7])
                               | (UpMoves & ~pos.ChessBoard.RowsBitBoard[7])
                               | (DownMoves & ~pos.ChessBoard.RowsBitBoard[0]);
            return occupancy;
        }

    

Henk
Posts: 5747
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 8:31 am

Re: Comparison of bitboard attack-getter variants

Post by Henk » Thu Jan 07, 2016 12:14 pm

If I would have more patience I can compute them one bit shorter. This computation already takes at least five minutes. So I cancelled it.

a1 3439443032492089405 14
b1 3135786584331814519 13
c1 8619110724855342808 13
d1 7848207856287267137 13
e1 3811733587375915473 13
f1 8762675609952735468 13
g1 15700248209820441285 13
h1 17752752118909405489 14
a2 5695838162267683422 13
b2 7748342069098114922 12
c2 6396338132881246243 12
d2 17270652676284938484 12
e2 3451001275122215817 12
f2 7225251425809932768 12
g2 1503419863794000794 12
h2 14685175808191312949 13
a3 4158265960666958673 13
b3 4158265960666958673 12
c3 13032946816902618242 12
d3 14705383267963762421 12
e3 9241527724179543109 12
f3 5502914338636096040 12
g3 5429984680954171549 12
h3 683733530782468012 13
a4 9941963182310300702 13
b4 1206233330754133353 12
c4 11095247725808078876 12

User avatar
hgm
Posts: 23523
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:06 am
Location: Amsterdam
Full name: H G Muller
Contact:

Re: Comparison of bitboard attack-getter variants

Post by hgm » Thu Jan 07, 2016 12:15 pm

Henk wrote:Otherwise I can wait for inifinity before it completes.
Indeed. That is why I said doing it by hand would be a lot faster. Even a lot faster than writing the program to do it automatically.

Henk
Posts: 5747
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 8:31 am

Re: Comparison of bitboard attack-getter variants

Post by Henk » Fri Jan 08, 2016 8:00 pm

Just encountered a bug for diagonal moves. Combination with all bits enabled was not generated so my engine crashed for that entry was not in the table.

Same should hold for straight moves too but strangely engine did not crash.

So I have to repair the bug and start all over again with generating magic numbers.

If you don't believe in magic ...

Henk
Posts: 5747
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 8:31 am

Re: Comparison of bitboard attack-getter variants

Post by Henk » Fri Jan 08, 2016 8:31 pm


Post Reply