A complete 2000 lines of code engine

[MikeB]

Minic is now better than fruit2.1

Code: Select all

Score of fruit_21 vs Minic: 33 - 65 - 34 [0.379]
Elo difference: -85.94 +/- 52.46

That is so awesome - keep up the great work!

[silentshark]

Using TT in qsearch was useless in Minic with a very simple eval. It became good to store and probe in qsearch when eval started to be the bottleneck.

Just probing TT in qsearch seems strange to me, this will only be good when in check I guess... I store things in qsearch with depth=-1. I guess the important thing is to get eval score for free, I don't expect a lot from TT cut-off.

Aha in qsearch, I do eval hashtable store and probe, and main hashtable probe only. But it seems many engines have now got rid of the eval hashtable, and store eval in the main hashtable.

[xr_a_y]

Using TT in qsearch was useless in Minic with a very simple eval. It became good to store and probe in qsearch when eval started to be the bottleneck.

Just probing TT in qsearch seems strange to me, this will only be good when in check I guess... I store things in qsearch with depth=-1. I guess the important thing is to get eval score for free, I don't expect a lot from TT cut-off.

Aha in qsearch, I do eval hashtable store and probe, and main hashtable probe only. But it seems many engines have now got rid of the eval hashtable, and store eval in the main hashtable.

Yes I was using two tables before, but switch to the xiphos style eval+score TT some weeks ago.

[silentshark]

Using TT in qsearch was useless in Minic with a very simple eval. It became good to store and probe in qsearch when eval started to be the bottleneck.

Just probing TT in qsearch seems strange to me, this will only be good when in check I guess... I store things in qsearch with depth=-1. I guess the important thing is to get eval score for free, I don't expect a lot from TT cut-off.

Aha in qsearch, I do eval hashtable store and probe, and main hashtable probe only. But it seems many engines have now got rid of the eval hashtable, and store eval in the main hashtable.

Yes I was using two tables before, but switch to the xiphos style eval+score TT some weeks ago.

Maybe I should look at this again - is the single table a clear win?

[xr_a_y]

not for Minic, it was equal with a poor eval at least.

[xr_a_y]

A totally absurd question rise up yesterday : "can fairy-max still beat Minic?". And the answer is YES ! (but not often ...)

[xr_a_y]

Be careful testers, version 0.61 of Minic is affected by a bug. May segfault in pawn endgame. I hope it won't affect the current div6 or group C.
A patch will be released soon, 0.60 can be used instead.

Best regards

[xr_a_y]

Be careful testers, version 0.61 of Minic is affected by a bug. May segfault in pawn endgame. I hope it won't affect the current div6 or group C.
A patch will be released soon, 0.60 can be used instead.

Best regards

Wow crazy bug ... material table was not taking into account the removed pawn after a promotion ... Let's see how this affect elo ...

[xr_a_y]

Some SMP results :

Code: Select all

Rank Name                          Elo     +/-   Games   Score   Draws
   1 Minic 3 threads                77      23     598   61.0%   35.3%
   2 rofChade1                      71      25     598   60.1%   22.2%
   3 Minic 2 threads                46      23     599   56.5%   34.6%
   4 Topple_0.4.0_nehalem            5      25     598   50.7%   21.4%
   5 Minic                         -88      23     598   37.5%   32.9%
   6 fruit_21                     -113      26     599   34.2%   19.7%

1795 of 15000 games finished.

[xr_a_y]

Be careful testers, version 0.61 of Minic is affected by a bug. May segfault in pawn endgame. I hope it won't affect the current div6 or group C.
A patch will be released soon, 0.60 can be used instead.

Best regards

Wow crazy bug ... material table was not taking into account the removed pawn after a promotion ... Let's see how this affect elo ...

Release 0.62 is available and fix this bug.

Please note that GroupeC and Division6 can of course go on with 0.61 but after that 0.61 shall not be tested more.