bob wrote:
Do you have a version with EGTB support compiled in? If so, it should work just fine, it does here...
Hello Bob,
I'm using the JA compile and Arena 2.0.1
Aser Huerga wrote:After setting egtb on and indicate tb path on the command line parameters, the debug window shows:
9.703<--1:EGTB access enabled
389.735<--1:using tbpath=F:\Ajedrez\TB
389.797<--1:5 piece tablebase files found
389.828<--1:22274kb of RAM used for TB indices and decompression tables
389.860<--1:EGTB cache memory = 32 bytes.
bob wrote:
Do you have a version with EGTB support compiled in? If so, it should work just fine, it does here...
Hello Bob,
I'm using the JA compile and Arena 2.0.1
Aser Huerga wrote:After setting egtb on and indicate tb path on the command line parameters, the debug window shows:
9.703<--1:EGTB access enabled
389.735<--1:using tbpath=F:\Ajedrez\TB
389.797<--1:5 piece tablebase files found
389.828<--1:22274kb of RAM used for TB indices and decompression tables
389.860<--1:EGTB cache memory = 32 bytes.
but no ponder hits anyway.
... take a look:
Something's broken. The program is definitely hitting the egtb's because the PV's end in <EGTB>. I am not sure how it determines the TB hits and it might be that Crafty doesn't send the necessary data for that to show.
Crafty's logfile would show egtb hits however, so you could look there to verify things are working.
Aser Huerga wrote:OK, thanks Bob.
I'm testing the 64-bit version now, I'll post the results in a few days.
Hi Aser,
just tested a few Crafty engines here inside Arena 2.01:
None of them using that field TBHits inside Arena - but of course you see in the line: Tbs are used - and you see it of course if you setup a 5men position which has a long mate.
Aser Huerga wrote:OK, thanks Bob.
I'm testing the 64-bit version now, I'll post the results in a few days.
Hi Aser,
just tested a few Crafty engines here inside Arena 2.01:
None of them using that field TBHits inside Arena - but of course you see in the line: Tbs are used - and you see it of course if you setup a 5men position which has a long mate.
Yes, I've just checked it. Since is my first Crafty testings I prefer to ask to be sure things are right.
Aser Huerga wrote:OK, thanks Bob.
I'm testing the 64-bit version now, I'll post the results in a few days.
Hi Aser,
just tested a few Crafty engines here inside Arena 2.01:
None of them using that field TBHits inside Arena - but of course you see in the line: Tbs are used - and you see it of course if you setup a 5men position which has a long mate.
Yes, I've just checked it. Since is my first Crafty testings I prefer to ask to be sure things are right.
Thanks!
Don't worry
What arena puts in there (tbhits) is likely to come from uci engines reporting their tb hits with the uci protocol "info tbhits"
yanquis1972 wrote:20 elo is actually pretty impressive, imo. bob, do you have a guesstimate as to what crafty's human elo would be? i know come CC fans don't even think in such terms but i'd think as an author it would be one of the most interesting aspects to me. i guess computer chess has in some ways (certainly in strength) surpassed human chess though.
Too many different rating pools. USCF? CCF? FIDE? Each would be different. And since there are not many games between Crafty and FIDE players (except for blitz where humans have real problems anyway) it is difficult to produce a decent guess...
Some of us remember when you believed, and quite openly stated engines were not GM strength (not even close). However, that was then and this is now. Clearly Crafty is of strong GM strength, and seems alot harder to beat than many of the ELO giants. Personally, I like the direction you have taken your engine. True to its roots, and a S.O.B to beat in blitz.
That was 10-15 years ago, when it was correct. Hardware has changed a bunch since then.
I was just remembering the past Bob, nothing more. But, also stating Crafty is now clearly GM strength.