The only binary included in the archive is the 64 bit binary.
http://cap.connx.com/chess-engines/new- ... f_1.6.3.7z
There are UCI options for each of the three new UCI parameters.
Just for fun, here's the "smooth scaling" version
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 12540
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
- Location: Redmond, WA USA
-
- Posts: 3707
- Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 7:10 pm
Re: Just for fun, here's the "smooth scaling" vers
Any strength increase over the JA compile? Also why not include SS in the original release?
-
- Posts: 319
- Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:40 am
- Location: Naperville, IL
Re: Just for fun, here's the "smooth scaling" vers
1.6.3 is a bugfix release, intended to address all the known/patched bugs but otherwise have no effect on engine strength (unless you wish to test Stockfish 1.6.x 8CPU, which previously did not exist). I assume the answer to "why not include SS in the original release" is "because it isn't ready yet".M ANSARI wrote:Any strength increase over the JA compile? Also why not include SS in the original release?
I think it's safe to assume that the gain (if any) of SS is the same for 1.6.3 as for 1.6.2.
-
- Posts: 900
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:06 pm
Re: Just for fun, here's the "smooth scaling" vers
Will there be a 32-bit SS version?
-
- Posts: 12540
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
- Location: Redmond, WA USA
Re: Just for fun, here's the "smooth scaling" vers
If nobody else builds one, I will make one tomorrow.David Dahlem wrote:Will there be a 32-bit SS version?
-
- Posts: 12540
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
- Location: Redmond, WA USA
Re: Just for fun, here's the "smooth scaling" vers
Nobody knows. The only test with more than a handful of games that I know of between the two versions is here:M ANSARI wrote:Any strength increase over the JA compile?
Code: Select all
Stockfish 1.6.2s 64-bit 2CPU 3139 +80 −74 77.4% −183.8 32.3% 62 60.3%
Stockfish 1.6.2 64-bit 2CPU 3114 +29 −29 58.0% −50.7 50.3% 350
Because it is nothing by my silly futzing around with the original. Eventually, someone might make something interesting out of the idea, but I do not think we even know if it is a good idea or not yet.Also why not include SS in the original release?
I am doing something different with the way that null move pruning is handled.
-
- Posts: 4565
- Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:40 am
- Full name:
Re: Just for fun, here's the "smooth scaling" vers
Some CCRL 40/4 results 1.6s vs 1.6.2handful of games
I have not checked CEGT but there are some CCRL results Dann. Only for 1.6 with Dann's mods, not 1.6.2 I think. The best comparison maybe is the top 4 CPU version that is one with Smooth Scaling, 1793 games, 3187 elo vs 1795 games 3179 elo
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first
place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you
are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.
-- Brian W. Kernighan
place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you
are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.
-- Brian W. Kernighan
-
- Posts: 12540
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
- Location: Redmond, WA USA
Re: Just for fun, here's the "smooth scaling" vers
I am somewhat surprised to see the "s" version do well at 40/4, since at very fast time control, the "s" version boils down to the regular version (my additional shaving of the tree happens progressively at greater depths). I also suspect that at 40/2hrs we would see a much bigger difference, but it is pure conjecture on my part.Eelco de Groot wrote:Some CCRL 40/4 results 1.6s vs 1.6.2handful of games
I have not checked CEGT but there are some CCRL results Dann. Only for 1.6 with Dann's mods, not 1.6.2 I think. The best comparison maybe is the top 4 CPU version that is one with Smooth Scaling, 1793 games, 3187 elo vs 1795 games 3179 elo
-
- Posts: 4565
- Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:40 am
- Full name:
Re: Just for fun, here's the "smooth scaling" vers
It's certainly possible Dann. Nobody has tested your new UCI settings yet. I haven't either Also the new 1.6.3 may change the picture again, make 8 CPU comparisons possible and good bugfixes can only help in my opinion to bring out the differences more clearly, because bugs just introduce statistical and systematical noise in the results. The long time control testing is anyhow a bit underrepresented in changing Stockfish, there is more room for improvements in that area.
Regards Eelco
Regards Eelco
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first
place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you
are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.
-- Brian W. Kernighan
place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you
are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.
-- Brian W. Kernighan
-
- Posts: 12540
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
- Location: Redmond, WA USA
Re: Just for fun, here's the "smooth scaling" vers
That's OK. Neither have I!Eelco de Groot wrote:It's certainly possible Dann. Nobody has tested your new UCI settings yet. I haven't either
Also the new 1.6.3 may change the picture again, make 8 CPU comparisons possible and good bugfixes can only help in my opinion to bring out the differences more clearly, because bugs just introduce statistical and systematical noise in the results. The long time control testing is anyhow a bit underrepresented in changing Stockfish, there is more room for improvements in that area.
Regards Eelco