Clear and honest from you. As always.mcostalba wrote:We asked Jim to not compile sources directly downloaded from our repo to avoid fostering random bianaries of a still in development software. But we have nothing against derived engines of official release: sources based on an officially released version, like Stockfish 2.1.1, and then further modified by the author and, of course, with the name changed. I think Sting belongs to this second group.rodolfoleoni wrote:It's not easy to understand why this agreement could involve the Sting engine. Author has been respectful of glp rules and it's not an "unofficial" Stockfish as many others we recently saw. It's a legal derivative (as well as Tinapa). A fork, not a clone.Jim Ablett wrote:Hi Marek,
Unfortunately I have an agreement with the Stockfish team only to compile the official Stockfish version,I ask Jim Ablett to compile my project and to make it available for all (thanks in advance!):
but I wish you much success with your project.
Jim.
I hope Stockfish team will allow you to compile it.
Sting SF 1.0 is out
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:16 pm
Re: Sting SF 1.0 is out
Rodolfo (The Baron Team)
-
- Posts: 41465
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:52 am
- Location: Auckland, NZ
Re: Sting SF 1.0 is out
Marco - are there any other Stockfish based derivatives which you'd consider to be in this second group?mcostalba wrote:But we have nothing against derived engines of official release: sources based on an officially released version, like Stockfish 2.1.1, and then further modified by the author and, of course, with the name changed. I think Sting belongs to this second group.
gbanksnz at gmail.com
-
- Posts: 1010
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 2:49 pm
Re: Sting SF 1.0 (Mediafire link).
Thanks JesúsAjedrecista wrote:Hello Mike:
It seems that this file contains the sources. Mediafire link:MikeGL wrote:I have problem connecting to .pl domains I guess.
Can we grab it in mediafire or some other sites with different URL without .pl
http://www.mediafire.com/?jf1omcgkejq1b4d
Enjoy! And thanks to Marek for his effort. Of course, thank you very much to SF team for programming an excellent engine such as StockFish is.
Regards from Spain.
Ajedrecista.
-
- Posts: 2684
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:17 pm
Re: Sting SF 1.0 is out
I don't keep the list of SF derived (although perhaps I should), anyhow the little "rule" (an hint actually) I gave above should be self explanatory and everybody could judge for themself, in case you have some doubts on a particular engine you can open a discussion here on the forum: it would be instructive, mainly to clarify once more the GPL concepts with practical examples.Graham Banks wrote: Marco - are there any other Stockfish based derivatives which you'd consider to be in this second group?
-
- Posts: 1971
- Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 9:04 pm
- Location: Madrid, Spain.
First compile in Chess2U forum.
Hello:
I have found this info in Chess2U forum:
http://www.chess2u.com/t4988-sting-sf-1 ... able#28947
sting_SF_10_w32.rar
SF 2.1.1 won 290.5 - 209.5 (+168 -87 = 245). I did my calculations and (more less) I get (with 2-sigma confidence ~ 95.45% confidence) a rating difference of +56.8 ± 22.2 ~ [+34.6, +79] in favour of SF 2.1.1.
I do not know if in that test SF 2.1.1 was w32 or x64; I have the same doubt with Sting SF 111208 (again I do not know if it is the same executable of the download link I post).
Regards from Spain.
Ajedrecista.
I have found this info in Chess2U forum:
http://www.chess2u.com/t4988-sting-sf-1 ... able#28947
sting_SF_10_w32.rar
SF 2.1.1 won 290.5 - 209.5 (+168 -87 = 245). I did my calculations and (more less) I get (with 2-sigma confidence ~ 95.45% confidence) a rating difference of +56.8 ± 22.2 ~ [+34.6, +79] in favour of SF 2.1.1.
I do not know if in that test SF 2.1.1 was w32 or x64; I have the same doubt with Sting SF 111208 (again I do not know if it is the same executable of the download link I post).
Regards from Spain.
Ajedrecista.
-
- Posts: 2272
- Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:50 am
Re: First compile in Chess2U forum.
Well even if it costs elo, if this "sacrifice detection" really works it might beAjedrecista wrote:Hello:
I have found this info in Chess2U forum:
http://www.chess2u.com/t4988-sting-sf-1 ... able#28947
sting_SF_10_w32.rar
SF 2.1.1 won 290.5 - 209.5 (+168 -87 = 245). I did my calculations and (more less) I get (with 2-sigma confidence ~ 95.45% confidence) a rating difference of +56.8 ± 22.2 ~ [+34.6, +79] in favour of SF 2.1.1.
I do not know if in that test SF 2.1.1 was w32 or x64; I have the same doubt with Sting SF 111208 (again I do not know if it is the same executable of the download link I post).
Regards from Spain.
Ajedrecista.
useful for analysis. So far I do not understand the code (or the underlying principles).
-
- Posts: 1136
- Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:02 pm
Re: First compile in Chess2U forum.
Of course, it is a very good result. My proposition is, to try some positions.Michel wrote:Well even if it costs elo, if this "sacrifice detection" really works it might beAjedrecista wrote:Hello:
I have found this info in Chess2U forum:
http://www.chess2u.com/t4988-sting-sf-1 ... able#28947
sting_SF_10_w32.rar
SF 2.1.1 won 290.5 - 209.5 (+168 -87 = 245). I did my calculations and (more less) I get (with 2-sigma confidence ~ 95.45% confidence) a rating difference of +56.8 ± 22.2 ~ [+34.6, +79] in favour of SF 2.1.1.
I do not know if in that test SF 2.1.1 was w32 or x64; I have the same doubt with Sting SF 111208 (again I do not know if it is the same executable of the download link I post).
Regards from Spain.
Ajedrecista.
useful for analysis. So far I do not understand the code (or the underlying principles).
It may help us to know usefulness of my idea too.
I have not a computer to work at this idea (it works in my head mainly), but it will change soon. Then my work will be faster and better than now.
It is a time to prove that machines may play chess like human without A.I.
-
- Posts: 1010
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 2:49 pm
Re: First compile in Chess2U forum.
Hesús,
Seems like that compilation is strange.
It has no option to modify the Hash. It has only a default hash of 5MB.
Engine keeps on crashing in Arena.
Also, if I ran that specific Sting1.0 compilation in command prompt and typed uci, it displays the option Hash but it cannot be set to anything.
I typed: setoption name Hash 512
But it is claiming no such option.
Anyways I'll attempt my rusty and lousy compilation skills with that source code.
Seems like that compilation is strange.
It has no option to modify the Hash. It has only a default hash of 5MB.
Engine keeps on crashing in Arena.
Also, if I ran that specific Sting1.0 compilation in command prompt and typed uci, it displays the option Hash but it cannot be set to anything.
I typed: setoption name Hash 512
But it is claiming no such option.
Anyways I'll attempt my rusty and lousy compilation skills with that source code.
-
- Posts: 41465
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:52 am
- Location: Auckland, NZ
Re: Sting SF 1.0 is out
gbanksnz at gmail.com
-
- Posts: 4567
- Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:40 am
- Full name:
Re: Sting SF 1.0 is out
Very nice logo Graham! This is what I associated the name with:
The Stingray submarine, from the Supermarionation series by Jerry Anderson. "Marina, Marina!"
Eelco
The Stingray submarine, from the Supermarionation series by Jerry Anderson. "Marina, Marina!"
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
place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you
are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.
-- Brian W. Kernighan