It's slowly getting stronger . Still lacking pawn evaluation though.
Changes:
- 604.5/1000 or ~70 ELO better than previous version
- Killer moves
- Tuned PSQ tables/mobility
- Better king eval in endgame (won't stay on back row)
- Show '#' for checkmate
- Improved UI (new game, switch black/white, choose time/move)
- Fixed crashes from using invalid hash moves
- Other small bug fixes
- Speed optimizations
Yeah. Different browsers have vastly different JS engines. IE's JScript totally sucks, a private development version of Chrome's V8 was allegedly half the speed of optimized C code. I'm surprised Mozilla only got 8,000 NPS; SpiderMonkey/TraceMonkey is usually quite efficient. And I'm also surprised Opera got 120,000 NPS, it doesn't seem that fast for me.
Here's a benchmark of the first version of Ajax Chess (with some slightly outdated browsers) that shows the huge difference in speed.
I was just surprised at the poor performance of Mozilla. It seemed odd to me that another browser would be 15 times faster. But looking at your numbers, I guess it's not such an oddity after all.
Nice job on the program, Gary. Amazing that a JavaScript based program can play a creditable game.
Tord Romstad wrote:I get 155,000 N/s with Safari 5 on a 2.8 GHz i7.
This is a pretty impressive program. Thanks, Gary!
Glad you like it, as it is heavily inspired by Stockfish . The pruning ideas are a very basic version of what is in Stockfish. I should add a thanks section to the page for this.
Great work on the Glaurung for iPhone as well, it's great fun to play against.
Yeah. Different browsers have vastly different JS engines. IE's JScript totally sucks, a private development version of Chrome's V8 was allegedly half the speed of optimized C code. I'm surprised Mozilla only got 8,000 NPS; SpiderMonkey/TraceMonkey is usually quite efficient. And I'm also surprised Opera got 120,000 NPS, it doesn't seem that fast for me.
Here's a benchmark of the first version of Ajax Chess (with some slightly outdated browsers) that shows the huge difference in speed.
Peter
I am also surprised Mozilla does so poorly. It may be that they don't optimize recursive functions, or maybe I'm falling down some bad code path for them. Too bad too, as if they were fast, with IE9 coming out, it would perform decently on all major browsers.
tmokonen wrote:I was just surprised at the poor performance of Mozilla. It seemed odd to me that another browser would be 15 times faster. But looking at your numbers, I guess it's not such an oddity after all.
Nice job on the program, Gary. Amazing that a JavaScript based program can play a creditable game.
Thanks Tony! I find it's at a good strength right now. I can beat it occasionally, but not often. After adding some pawn evaluation, that may not last too much longer .
And, I'm surprised Mozilla does poorly as well. The mysteries of Javascript .
. Still lacking pawn evaluation though.