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.
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.
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.
Nothing is difficult for the entrenched establishment to tolerate. But all you are doing is continuing to beat the same drum, long after the head has split, so that it is just making an irritating noise. However, as far as your last statement goes, I have _never_ banned you. If you were banned while I was a moderator, it was a team decision, not a unilateral one.
We do not ban without warnings. But your continued insults directed at others, without merit or justification, has to stop. A gratuitous insult tossed at the SF guys because they have some sort of issue with a new version is not reasonable. It may well be it is not their problem at all. I've had my share of such bugs where my testing is on linux and windows goes ape-shit for no good reason. It does not represent a lack of testing, necessarily. It might represent a lack of testing on a specific piece of hardware, operating system and compiler. None of us have the time, energy or interest in trying to test on every platform. We offer free programs. Tested as well as we can test 'em. No insults needed nor wanted...
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....
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.
Fire 1.1,a personality of it and a personality of Fire 1.31 are stronger than Fire 1.31 & fire 1.2 in my rating list....
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
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....
The fact that Stockfish crashed in the first game would suggest it is not a random event though. Maybe it is best to just wait if it happens again. I'm assuming that, since both engines were calculating you could rule out the book reading code? Also, after castling White seemed to be under attack but the score of both engines is 0.00 resp. -0.00. So possibly a repetition of moves, and just maybe there is a problem with accepting TT hits in PV nodes. The error code I believe is a general one. I have had a few of those for different problems. Maybe Martin could get a version that dumps error output in case of a crash? If that is within the TCEC rules and Marco would want to try to track it down. The elo would not be affected very seriously by that I assume. That is all I can think of Martin...
Eelco
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first
place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you
are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.
-- Brian W. Kernighan
