New chess engine: Texel

[mcostalba]

The main difference is that Texel is written in C++11 instead of java.

Hi Peter, congratulations for your new engine !

I was curious about the C++11 thing so I downloaded and took a glance at the sources: nicely written ! And the C++11 stuff like std::thread and std::lock_guard are very tempting A pity I cannot upgrade SF (for the moment) due to still not enough support on many platforms.

[Graham Banks]

A logo that anybody is welcome to use. I'm sure that there will be better ones made by others, but it's a start.

[Graham Banks]

Another logo. Last one from me.

[Le Fou numerique]

Hi,

Another one:



Regards,
Patrick

[Thomas Lagershausen]

Texel didn´t run under arena 3.0 gui with the message missing config

OS: WIN XP 64bit.

[Don]

Thanks Martin

I know +140 sounds impressive, but I believe there is some unknown effect in the test setup that is responsible for this. A 2X speed increase should not be worth more than 70 elo max.

At first I suspected java startup time and time before the JIT compiler had optimized the java bytecode. However I use cutechess-cli to run the tests, and it doesn't restart the engines between games, so this effect should only exist for the first game.

Yes some say it's 50 elo for doubling, most say 70 and some say it's about 100.
Anyway i think even if it's less than 140 at long TC, even 70, it's still impressive.
I recently fixed a couple of nasty bugs but could not improve more than 10
So fingers crossed to surpass Fruit 2.1!

There is not fixed ELO for doubling, it depends on the level you start from and the program itself. If you are doing 2 ply searches doubling the time will add 200 ELO or more. The ELO gain is reduced as you go deeper. I think this is somewhat offset with modern programs which get more out of a doubling that programs of 10 years ago.

[Don]

Thanks Martin

I know +140 sounds impressive, but I believe there is some unknown effect in the test setup that is responsible for this. A 2X speed increase should not be worth more than 70 elo max.

At first I suspected java startup time and time before the JIT compiler had optimized the java bytecode. However I use cutechess-cli to run the tests, and it doesn't restart the engines between games, so this effect should only exist for the first game.

Yes some say it's 50 elo for doubling, most say 70 and some say it's about 100.
Anyway i think even if it's less than 140 at long TC, even 70, it's still impressive.
I recently fixed a couple of nasty bugs but could not improve more than 10
So fingers crossed to surpass Fruit 2.1!

The general effect that has been noticed, but not confirmed, is that the gain in Elo is larger for shorter time controls and decreases as the time control increases.

Woops, I already commented about this before reading this post.

Don

[Adam Hair]

Thanks Martin

I know +140 sounds impressive, but I believe there is some unknown effect in the test setup that is responsible for this. A 2X speed increase should not be worth more than 70 elo max.

At first I suspected java startup time and time before the JIT compiler had optimized the java bytecode. However I use cutechess-cli to run the tests, and it doesn't restart the engines between games, so this effect should only exist for the first game.

Yes some say it's 50 elo for doubling, most say 70 and some say it's about 100.
Anyway i think even if it's less than 140 at long TC, even 70, it's still impressive.
I recently fixed a couple of nasty bugs but could not improve more than 10
So fingers crossed to surpass Fruit 2.1!

There is not fixed ELO for doubling, it depends on the level you start from and the program itself. If you are doing 2 ply searches doubling the time will add 200 ELO or more. The ELO gain is reduced as you go deeper. I think this is somewhat offset with modern programs which get more out of a doubling that programs of 10 years ago.

IMHO, your description is definitely correct.

[zullil]

Unfortunately std::thread is not supported by gcc 4.6 in Mac OS X. See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50196.

That thread also says it should be fixed in 4.7. Any chance you could try that?

It compiles without any issues using gcc-4.7. However, there is an error at the very end. The compiler is unable to write the executable files, because the texel101 directory that is created from the zipfile has permissions rwx------. Once that is fixed, all is fine. The program seems to run correctly, based on very limited testing.

Thanks.

[Adam Hair]

It will not run for me in XP 64-bit. I get the message that it is not a valid WIN32 application.