swami wrote:
Stockfish 1.6.2 was tested when STS suites had a partial credit moves and Arena erroneously awarded points for certain moves. I wasn't aware of this bug until Wesley pointed it out in a thread later on.
Stockfish 1.6.3 is tested with no-partial scoring-STS suites which consists of only best moves.
Hi Swami,
thanks for the explanation. It would be interesting, as a verification if you could rerun SF 1.6.2 with the lastest no-partial scoring-STS setup so to verify your test gives no difference from 1.6.3
yanquis1972 wrote:out of curiousity swami (or anyone else), what are the leaders in the f/g/h pawn category? my guesses would be naum & shredder 12. it would be interesting to see results for junior 2010 as well.
i tested the latest ivanhoe at 5s/move (but on 4 cores) and it's % scores for all tests were S (superduper?) with a couple As at the end. this despite some bug in the engine/gui/which caused it to skip about 10 positions or so. very impressive nonetheless, something like 87% best move score. i see now looking at the stats it scored 'only' 76 on the f/g/h one, with 869 points (i'm pretty sure no positions were skipped on that one since i watched it as it was the one i was most interested in). that was definitely it's lowest best move %.
other bugs in the sts stat report -- it was awarded only 30 points in sts5 despite scoring an 88 in that suite, & all of sts6 apparently failed to save or translate. i have no idea if it is the engine/gui/stat program thats responsible for these errors but thought i'd let you know.
edit -- sorry that got so offtopic, i thought i was posting in one of swami's sts thrreads
I believe the latest Robbo is still the topper in f/g/h or other test suites for that matter. It gets "S" in all the suites.
I'm not sure which files you were using when you tested STS 5. Was it the one that was offered up for download at the site or is it the one that came with the STS Stat.exe package? What GUI version have you been using if I may know?
You could also send me the log file, I may have a look at it. nswami15 at yahoo dot com.
I read in the readme file that hashtables over 2GB( upto 8GB) should work now . But I cant get more than 2 GB
Sytem: i7 950, os Win7 ultimate 64bit, 6GB RAM.
I read in the readme file that hashtables over 2GB( upto 8GB) should work now . But I cant get more than 2 GB
Sytem: i7 950, os Win7 ultimate 64bit, 6GB RAM.
Any suggestions wellcome.
Clemens
Do you have more than 2 GB of *free* RAM?
I have 8 GB on my system, but I can rarely allocate more than 2 GB of hash tables unless I shut some database services down.
I read in the readme file that hashtables over 2GB( upto 8GB) should work now . But I cant get more than 2 GB
Sytem: i7 950, os Win7 ultimate 64bit, 6GB RAM.
Any suggestions wellcome.
Clemens
Do you have more than 2 GB of *free* RAM?
I have 8 GB on my system, but I can rarely allocate more than 2 GB of hash tables unless I shut some database services down.
Hello DAn
when I am playing SF 1.6.3 with 2 GB I still have 3,1 GB free.
e.g. in CB gui 12 I can select 4 GB for hash but SF takes only 2.
I read in the readme file that hashtables over 2GB( upto 8GB) should work now . But I cant get more than 2 GB
Sytem: i7 950, os Win7 ultimate 64bit, 6GB RAM.
Any suggestions wellcome.
Clemens
Hi Clemens,
Could you state the knps figures of SF163x64 for 2, 4, 6, 8 cores?
I read in the readme file that hashtables over 2GB( upto 8GB) should work now . But I cant get more than 2 GB
Sytem: i7 950, os Win7 ultimate 64bit, 6GB RAM.
Any suggestions wellcome.
Clemens
Do you have more than 2 GB of *free* RAM?
I have 8 GB on my system, but I can rarely allocate more than 2 GB of hash tables unless I shut some database services down.
Hello DAn
when I am playing SF 1.6.3 with 2 GB I still have 3,1 GB free.
e.g. in CB gui 12 I can select 4 GB for hash but SF takes only 2.
regards, Clemens
I am not sure what is wrong, because I am analyzing right now with JA's build using 4 GB of hash and it seems to be working fine.
