Hi all!
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 00:42:29 +0300
"Shlomi Fish shlomif_at_shlomifish.org [fc-solve-discuss]"
<fc-solve-discuss_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> TL;DR: I recently improved the performance of the fc-solve's MS 32K benchmark,
> from about 5.52s down to 4.15s, after following Bill Raymond's excellent
> advice in this post:
>
> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fc-solve-discuss/conversations/messages/584
>
Just a headsup that by further mutating the scan's sh/bash source code (see
the previous posts), the runtime was further reduced to about 3.67s. See:
https://github.com/shlomif/fc-solve/commit/d76226c1ee3fd3e687d8efac9e7e06e110037cc7
> (short URL: https://is.gd/Lsmnll )
>
> and implementing a
> move-card-from-freecells-to-empty-stacks-and-immediately-put
> -a-child-card-above-it move.
>
> ----------
>
> I recall reading that post in the past, so I can refer to the speed stats of
> Bill Raymond's solver there, but I did not register the rest of the advice in
> the message until a few days ago. Then I tried implementing a new move (titled
> 'j') for this and after some coding and debugging had a working version.
>
> Trying to do:
>
> ./freecell-solver-range-parallel-solve 1 32000 100 -mi 100000 -to 0123456j89
> | tee new.dump
>
> vs.:
>
> ./freecell-solver-range-parallel-solve 1 32000 100 -mi 100000 -to 0123456789
> | tee old.dump
>
> Indicated that in the new version there were much fewer intractable deals (but
> also some new ones), and the total iterations count decreased by a factor of 4
> , while the speed increased by a factor of 4.
>
> So with this in mind, I created the obf-mod4.sh preset file which was based on
> obf-mod3.sh (which I wrote about in the previous post) only replacing all '7'
> moves with 'j'. This time the speedup was less dramatic but still
> significant: from 5.52seconds down to 4.20seconds (and with no introduced
> intractables).
>
> Some further tweaking reduced it to about 4.15s.
>
> I think there is more room for improvement there in Raymond's advice that
> "I thrive on these little details. My solver is fast (~10000000 deals per hour
> _at_733mHz) not because of any sophisticated algorithm but because I've
> experimented endlessly with every tiny variation and the best order to apply
> them. " and it would better be investigated further.
>
> Regards,
>
> Shlomi Fish
>
>
>
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/
http://ccmixter.org/files/destinazione_altrove/49997 - “Paint The Sky”
I’m worser at superlatives.
And I don’t ever use no double negatives.
— James at War, “Bad Grammar”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj6QqCH7g0Q
Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .
Received on Mon Sep 25 2017 - 13:06:13 IDT