TalkChess.com

Faulting application name: stockfish-211-64-ja.exe, version: 0.0.0.0, time stamp: 0x4dc7b844
Faulting module name: stockfish-211-64-ja.exe, version: 0.0.0.0, time stamp: 0x4dc7b844
Exception code: 0xc0000005
Fault offset: 0x0000000000023be7
Faulting process id: 0x908
Faulting application start time: 0x01cc159914c1f710
Faulting application path: E:\Engines\Stockfish\2.11\stockfish-211-64-ja.exe
Faulting module path: E:\Engines\Stockfish\2.11\stockfish-211-64-ja.exe
Report Id: 50f46f54-819e-11e0-b010-8188a0363a44

kranium wrote:From Openchess.org
http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1156

mcostalba wrote: Anyhow your sentence is interesting because with few words you perfectly synthesize what IMHO is the wrong way to approach engine development, in particular:

Of course everybody uses the approach he prefers, my comment simply says that we use a completely different approach in SF and we are happy with that !

A suggestion to the Marco and the Stockfish team...
perhaps you should redirect your time to re-evaluating your own flawed testing techniques, instead of dissing other engines/authors.

So many buggy versions, so often followed by urgent maintenance releases, one after another...
sheeesh... IMO this certainly wouldn't (and doesn't) quality you to criticize another's methods!

(unless of course, you have absolutely zero humility..which apparently may be the case?)
Of course I realize how easy it must be to get fat head (when lauded and praised as the Talkchess 'darling').

I do have one question for Marco and the team.
I've seen that Marco rigorously applied C++ templates, etc. and other optimizations to the Glaurung code...
and that Joona proficiently 'tuned' parameters...
but (as Bob has stated and I am confident would agree)...
this is clearly not the same thing as 'writing your own code from scratch.

Therefore, does this really qualify Marco (and Joona) as legitimate Stockfish 'authors'?
If so, it's certainly seems a double standard being applied...(i.e. Fire, and Houdini)?

bob wrote:

kranium wrote:From Openchess.org
http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1156

mcostalba wrote: Anyhow your sentence is interesting because with few words you perfectly synthesize what IMHO is the wrong way to approach engine development, in particular:

Of course everybody uses the approach he prefers, my comment simply says that we use a completely different approach in SF and we are happy with that !

A suggestion to the Marco and the Stockfish team...
perhaps you should redirect your time to re-evaluating your own flawed testing techniques, instead of dissing other engines/authors.

So many buggy versions, so often followed by urgent maintenance releases, one after another...
sheeesh... IMO this certainly wouldn't (and doesn't) quality you to criticize another's methods!

(unless of course, you have absolutely zero humility..which apparently may be the case?)
Of course I realize how easy it must be to get fat head (when lauded and praised as the Talkchess 'darling').

I do have one question for Marco and the team.
I've seen that Marco rigorously applied C++ templates, etc. and other optimizations to the Glaurung code...
and that Joona proficiently 'tuned' parameters...
but (as Bob has stated and I am confident would agree)...
this is clearly not the same thing as 'writing your own code from scratch.

Therefore, does this really qualify Marco (and Joona) as legitimate Stockfish 'authors'?
If so, it's certainly seems a double standard being applied...(i.e. Fire, and Houdini)?

Norman, it is time to either shut up or suffer the consequences. It is not _that_ uncommon to run into a compiler or O/S issue when something is released. It does _not_ mean "flawed testing" since no non-commercial programmer is going to keep several machines with various O/S types and versions, and then use all the possible compiler flags...

So stop this pro-clone nonsense. Every single thread, you have to pipe up with "rah-rah-rah-sis-boom-bah, cloners, cloners, rah-rah-rah. Give it up. NOW.

kranium wrote:

bob wrote:

kranium wrote:From Openchess.org
http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1156

mcostalba wrote: Anyhow your sentence is interesting because with few words you perfectly synthesize what IMHO is the wrong way to approach engine development, in particular:

Of course everybody uses the approach he prefers, my comment simply says that we use a completely different approach in SF and we are happy with that !

A suggestion to the Marco and the Stockfish team...
perhaps you should redirect your time to re-evaluating your own flawed testing techniques, instead of dissing other engines/authors.

So many buggy versions, so often followed by urgent maintenance releases, one after another...
sheeesh... IMO this certainly wouldn't (and doesn't) quality you to criticize another's methods!

(unless of course, you have absolutely zero humility..which apparently may be the case?)
Of course I realize how easy it must be to get fat head (when lauded and praised as the Talkchess 'darling').

I do have one question for Marco and the team.
I've seen that Marco rigorously applied C++ templates, etc. and other optimizations to the Glaurung code...
and that Joona proficiently 'tuned' parameters...
but (as Bob has stated and I am confident would agree)...
this is clearly not the same thing as 'writing your own code from scratch.

Therefore, does this really qualify Marco (and Joona) as legitimate Stockfish 'authors'?
If so, it's certainly seems a double standard being applied...(i.e. Fire, and Houdini)?

Norman, it is time to either shut up or suffer the consequences. It is not _that_ uncommon to run into a compiler or O/S issue when something is released. It does _not_ mean "flawed testing" since no non-commercial programmer is going to keep several machines with various O/S types and versions, and then use all the possible compiler flags...

So stop this pro-clone nonsense. Every single thread, you have to pipe up with "rah-rah-rah-sis-boom-bah, cloners, cloners, rah-rah-rah. Give it up. NOW.

I recognize the threat...reminds me of 'Surrender Dorothy' from the Wizard of Oz.
But, I will do as you say Bob...and shut up, as I realize my opinions must be difficult for the entrenched establishment to tolerate.

I will refrain if it means I might get banned by you again for a year without any due process (i.e. any opportunity to defend myself) as you did in the past.

Martin Thoresen wrote: Any idea?

mhalstern wrote:Norman,

As you are watching this thread, I have a question:

Is Fire 1.31 stronger than FireBird 1.2? - or does it just fix bugs? If so, how many elo stronger is it.

mcostalba wrote:

Martin Thoresen wrote: Any idea?

No, sorry. These random and not reproducible crashes are almost impossible to track down (at least for me). Here the problem is that are not reproducible, I can run thousand of games on my QUAD without experiencing one....