Page 2 of 2
Re: Chess960 / Fischer Random Perft Wiki Results
Posted: Mon May 11, 2020 1:50 pm
by zenpawn
AndrewGrant wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 1:35 pm
I did not know that this dataset made its way to the wiki. Cool to know, and hopefully useful.
Definitely useful. Thank you, Andrew. Sorry to have misreported these discrepancies.
I've now corrected the mismatches RM was experiencing.
Drilling down a bit on some of these, you get to positions like:
[d]nrkb2nr/ppppp1p1/6bp/5p2/1PP1P1P1/8/P1NPBP1P/qRK1BQNR w HBhb - 0 11
where castling queenside is illegal.
Re: Chess960 / Fischer Random Perft Wiki Results
Posted: Mon May 11, 2020 7:03 pm
by jonkr
This post was useful to me as it turns out I also wasn't checking for this case (even in 960), and was a quick fix to correct.
I guess Stockfish must have a test for this case that's only activated in Chess960 mode, whereas when not in Chess960 mode I assume the castling flags are invalid if rooks aren't on standard start squares and don't allow castling.
Re: Chess960 / Fischer Random Perft Wiki Results
Posted: Mon May 11, 2020 11:19 pm
by Sesse
My Chess.js fork seemingly handles this situation correctly, although I have no idea why. =)
Re: Chess960 / Fischer Random Perft Wiki Results
Posted: Tue May 12, 2020 6:32 am
by lucasart
Joerg Oster wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 10:06 am
That's because you're doing something wrong!
Can you figure it out?
Hint: do you SF expect to know that you are giving a Chess960 fen?
True. But that's because the SF implementation of casting is clumsy. If you do it well, the code can be 100% FRC agnostic.
In Demolito, everything is written for FRC, and normal chess as just a particular starting position. There is not a single Chess960 in the code, except to deal with the UCI protocol inconsistency. If the UCI protocol could be corrected, there would be no need for it.
Re: Chess960 / Fischer Random Perft Wiki Results
Posted: Tue May 12, 2020 2:12 pm
by zenpawn
lucasart wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 6:32 am
Joerg Oster wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 10:06 am
That's because you're doing something wrong!
Can you figure it out?
Hint: do you SF expect to know that you are giving a Chess960 fen?
True. But that's because the SF implementation of casting is clumsy. If you do it well, the code can be 100% FRC agnostic.
In Demolito, everything is written for FRC, and normal chess as just a particular starting position. There is not a single Chess960 in the code, except to deal with the UCI protocol inconsistency. If the UCI protocol could be corrected, there would be no need for it.
To be fair to Stockfish (and myself), I didn't expect it to know that I wanted Chess960, I just got the UCI syntax wrong for telling it.
But, you make a good point that special-casing for Fischer Random is not really necessary. Note: Winboard too has a variant command for "fischerandom".
Re: Chess960 / Fischer Random Perft Wiki Results
Posted: Tue May 12, 2020 3:56 pm
by AndrewGrant
lucasart wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 6:32 am
Joerg Oster wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 10:06 am
That's because you're doing something wrong!
Can you figure it out?
Hint: do you SF expect to know that you are giving a Chess960 fen?
True. But that's because the SF implementation of casting is clumsy. If you do it well, the code can be 100% FRC agnostic.
In Demolito, everything is written for FRC, and normal chess as just a particular starting position. There is not a single Chess960 in the code, except to deal with the UCI protocol inconsistency. If the UCI protocol could be corrected, there would be no need for it.
Likewise for Ethereal. If UCI could handle O-O-O and O-O, there would be no need for any special code at all.
Code: Select all
void moveToString(uint16_t move, char *str, int chess960) {
int from = MoveFrom(move), to = MoveTo(move);
// FRC reports using KxR notation, but standard does not
if (MoveType(move) == CASTLE_MOVE && !chess960)
to = castleKingTo(from, to);
Above is the only line of code that cares at all about whether its FRC or not.
Re: Chess960 / Fischer Random Perft Wiki Results
Posted: Thu May 14, 2020 10:33 am
by Sesse
I am still running Chess.js on the depth 6 results…
nrbbnk1r/pp2pppq/8/2pp3p/3P2P1/1N6/PPP1PP1P/1RBBNKQR w HBhb - 0 9. Chess.js perf depth 6 on my machine: 2526 seconds. Stockfish 11: Below 9 seconds! Clearly, there is some room for improvement here. =)
Re: Chess960 / Fischer Random Perft Wiki Results
Posted: Thu May 14, 2020 10:39 am
by xr_a_y
Sesse wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 10:33 am
I am still running Chess.js on the depth 6 results…
nrbbnk1r/pp2pppq/8/2pp3p/3P2P1/1N6/PPP1PP1P/1RBBNKQR w HBhb - 0 9. Chess.js perf depth 6 on my machine: 2526 seconds. Stockfish 11: Below 9 seconds! Clearly, there is some room for improvement here. =)
SF is fast here ! Mostly because it doesn't apply leaf nodes
Code: Select all
cnt = leaf ? MoveList<LEGAL>(pos).size() : perft<false>(pos, depth - 1);
Minic took 44 sec...
Re: Chess960 / Fischer Random Perft Wiki Results
Posted: Fri May 15, 2020 2:59 pm
by JohnWoe
Instead of a big ass list of FRC fens. One could simply play 100000 games against some stable FRC engine to see there's no illegal moves. Some study like positions are ok for unit testing.
About this position: [d]nrbbnk1r/pp2pppq/8/2pp3p/3P2P1/1N6/PPP1PP1P/1RBBNKQR w HBhb - 0 9
SF: Need to pipe in stdin and time it because it lacks functionality. But its movegen is fast.
Code: Select all
Nodes searched: 1310683359
real 0m9,890s
user 0m9,863s
sys 0m0,024s
Sapeli 1.89: depth 6 nodes 1310683359 time 34.979 mnps 37.470
LastEmperor:
Code: Select all
[ nrbbnk1r/pp2pppq/8/2pp3p/3P2P1/1N6/PPP1PP1P/1RBBNKQR w HBhb - 0 9 ]
Depth Nodes Mnps Time
0 1 0.000 0.000
1 29 0.000 0.000
2 1,036 0.000 0.000
3 31,344 31.344 0.001
4 1,139,166 29.978 0.038
5 35,627,310 43.395 0.821
6 1,310,683,359 82.113 15.962
=================================================
Nodes Mnps Time
Total 1,347,482,245 80.102 16.822
Summarum:
SF: 9.8s
LastEmperor: 16.8s
Sapeli: 35.229s