tpoppins wrote:Günther, the point of my post was the color -- something your carefully formatted text table fails to convey.
Here is what I see:
a) 4-CPU direct comparison between 0.921 and 0.92 is not available (ver. 0.92 not having been tested with 4CPUs)
b) However, a comparison between single CPU performance indicates that ver. 0.921 (based on some 300 games) is 23 ELO *below* that of 0.92.
c) Therefore the fact that 0.921 is leading the charts for 4CPUs is misleading, and probably only because 0.92 was not tested with 4CPUs.
This would support the hypothesis that 0.921 may have have introduced an issue, irrespective of the illegal move played in one of the TCEC games.
kasinp wrote:... irrespective of the illegal move played in one of the TCEC games.
The bug of the illegal move was there from very old versions. Only that seems that a lot of cores and bad luck are necessary to manifest it.
Got it, thank you for the clarification. I suppose this still leaves the question of a direct comparison between 0.92 and 0.921, for which I suppose 300+ games is probably still a small sample size.
I had read the thread several times, but I’m used to commenting out in Linux using the # key, not //, so removed the # in front of the ‘#define LINUX’ instead.
The compile gets further now, but I’ve still a bit to sort out for the RPi.
The # in C is not a comment, is a required part of the syntax. When I told uncomment I mean leaving like
#define LINUX
thus removing the final n that I have put in the line.