Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
Jerry,jd1 wrote:Thanks Martin!
I'll have a look at it. Could you please do one more thing for me (I don't have a 16 core machine), could you verify it is actually using 16 cores?
Thanks,
Jerry
Thank you Martin, I will look into it and get back to you.Martin Thoresen wrote:Jerry,jd1 wrote:Thanks Martin!
I'll have a look at it. Could you please do one more thing for me (I don't have a 16 core machine), could you verify it is actually using 16 cores?
Thanks,
Jerry
Yes I have verified that is uses all the cores specified in the info above.
So with 8 cores it's at 50% in task manager, 16 cores at 100% etc.
Best,
Martin
Thank you very much George, I would be most interested to see your results. From CCRL, Zappa Mexico II is about 20 elo stronger than the old Toga at 40/4 and 40 elo stronger at 40/40. Seeing that Ingo's test has finished with +57 elo (although maybe only 50 elo with Bayeselo), I would expect to beat Zappa Mexico narrowly at either time control. But maybe Zappa is just a bad match-up for Toga ...geots wrote:
If you will be patient, I will give you results against 2.02 and Zappa Mexico that you can take to the bank. I mention Zappa after reading Ingo's thread. After looking at CCRLs list- if 3.0 doesn't score better than Zappa Mexico- that would mean you almost have no increase with 3.0. Which I don't buy for a minute.
Best,
george
Hi Eelco,Eelco de Groot wrote:Yes Jerry you never mentioned any number for an expected elo-gain, that is very wise practice. Jerry I had a question, long time ago I made some code for Toga so that it could mate with Knight and Bishop against King, I know it is absolutely not going to give elos but it was just nice to get it working at the time. I am not sure I posted it on TDDB anywhere but implemented it in Toga CMLX on Rybka forum. Maybe it could be added sometime or maybe for a separate modified version of Toga?
Eelco
jd1 wrote:Thank you very much George, I would be most interested to see your results. From CCRL, Zappa Mexico II is about 20 elo stronger than the old Toga at 40/4 and 40 elo stronger at 40/40. Seeing that Ingo's test has finished with +57 elo (although maybe only 50 elo with Bayeselo), I would expect to beat Zappa Mexico narrowly at either time control. But maybe Zappa is just a bad match-up for Toga ...geots wrote:
If you will be patient, I will give you results against 2.02 and Zappa Mexico that you can take to the bank. I mention Zappa after reading Ingo's thread. After looking at CCRLs list- if 3.0 doesn't score better than Zappa Mexico- that would mean you almost have no increase with 3.0. Which I don't buy for a minute.
Best,
george
Jerry
I think Ingo is running Zappa Mexico II 64-bit?geots wrote:jd1 wrote:Thank you very much George, I would be most interested to see your results. From CCRL, Zappa Mexico II is about 20 elo stronger than the old Toga at 40/4 and 40 elo stronger at 40/40. Seeing that Ingo's test has finished with +57 elo (although maybe only 50 elo with Bayeselo), I would expect to beat Zappa Mexico narrowly at either time control. But maybe Zappa is just a bad match-up for Toga ...geots wrote:
If you will be patient, I will give you results against 2.02 and Zappa Mexico that you can take to the bank. I mention Zappa after reading Ingo's thread. After looking at CCRLs list- if 3.0 doesn't score better than Zappa Mexico- that would mean you almost have no increase with 3.0. Which I don't buy for a minute.
Best,
george
Jerry
Look, something is not right. It looks like apples are being compared to oranges. Not that it matters that much, unless I end up testing the wrong version. Unless I am wrong, Ingo is running Zappa Mexico 32bit and you are referring in CCRL to Z Mexico 64bit, at least I think you are. Not that I am much interested in his 32bit, but I want to be sure you are referring to Zappa 64bit.???????
george
Thank you! Yes I was referring to the 64 bit versiongeots wrote:Ok- my mistake. I guess Ingo is running Z Mexico 64bit. But like I said that is irrelevant. I just want to be sure YOU are referring to 64bit in your thread concerning CCRL ratings I replied to, which I am sure you are. And don't listen to anyone who says 200 games mean nothing and you need over 1000. Stats are what they are, but if under 1000 meant nothing, you could throw out about 50% or more of CCRLs ratings.
I am going to run 200 ag. Zappa Mexico 64 at blitz. That is a good start.
Best,
Hi Jerry,jd1 wrote:Hi Eelco,Eelco de Groot wrote:Yes Jerry you never mentioned any number for an expected elo-gain, that is very wise practice. Jerry I had a question, long time ago I made some code for Toga so that it could mate with Knight and Bishop against King, I know it is absolutely not going to give elos but it was just nice to get it working at the time. I am not sure I posted it on TDDB anywhere but implemented it in Toga CMLX on Rybka forum. Maybe it could be added sometime or maybe for a separate modified version of Toga?
Eelco
Sorry I forgot to reply this earlier. If you could give me a link to the code that would be much appreciated.
Jerry
. I only slightly changed the board values from Glaurung that guide the Knight and Bishop in the right direction. Posted the code on Rybkaforum int the thread from Teemu when he was working on Toga CMLXThanks for the testing National, it is quite a coincidence that Bishop and Knight vs. King alone came on the board in your games just now
It is a small piece of code and most was already written by Thomas Gaksch, maybe it is an idea to put this small routine in the next CMLX 5e version or in Thomas' latest -6a?- version? I have to admit I would like to borrow some of Teemu's code for Chess960 in time, I don't think I could write such a thing myself, unless I study other programs with FRC code, that of course would help. The way I implemented KBNK is also heavily based on Tord's code in Glaurung although Tord's version is more compact and he wrote a version that computes things just in one piece of code for the needed colour.
Here is my version of the KBNK routine in eval.cpp:
Code: Select all
static const int KBNKingposMatrix[64] = {
90, 70, 50, 30, 10, -10, -30, -50,
70, 40, 20, 0, -20, -40, -60, -30,
50, 20, -10, -30, -50, -70, -40, -10,
30, 0, -30, -60, -80, -50, -20, 10,
10, -20, -50, -80, -60, -30, 0, 30,
-10, -40, -70, -50, -30, -10, 20, 50,
-30, -60, -40, -20, 0, 20, 40, 50,
-50, -30, -10, 10, 30, 50, 70, 90,
};
.
static const int KingDistanceBonus[8] = {0, 0, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10, 5};
.
.
// eval()
int eval(board_t * board, int alpha, int beta, int ThreadId) {
int opening, endgame;
material_info_t mat_info[1];
pawn_info_t pawn_info[1];
int mul[ColourNb];
int phase;
int eval;
int wb, bb;
int winnerKSQ, loserKSQ;
int lazy_eval,probe_score; // Thomas
ASSERT(board!=NULL);
ASSERT(board_is_legal(board));
ASSERT(!board_is_check(board)); // exceptions are extremely rare
// init
opening = 0;
endgame = 0;
/* if (egbb_is_loaded && board->piece_nb <=5 && ABS(SearchBest[0].value) >= WIN_SCORE) {
if (probe_bitbases(board, probe_score)){
return probe_score;
}
} */
// material
material_get_info(mat_info,board,ThreadId);
opening += mat_info->opening;
endgame += mat_info->endgame;
mul[White] = mat_info->mul[White];
mul[Black] = mat_info->mul[Black];
// PST
opening += board->opening;
endgame += board->endgame;
// pawns
pawn_get_info(pawn_info,board,ThreadId);
opening += pawn_info->opening;
endgame += pawn_info->endgame;
// draw
eval_draw(board,mat_info,pawn_info,mul);
if (mat_info->mul[White] < mul[White]) mul[White] = mat_info->mul[White];
if (mat_info->mul[Black] < mul[Black]) mul[Black] = mat_info->mul[Black];
if (mul[White] == 0 && mul[Black] == 0) return ValueDraw;
// win
if (board->piece_nb == 4){ // KBNK?
if (board->number[WhiteKnight12] == 1 && board->number[WhiteBishop12] == 1){
eval = ValueWin;
wb = board->piece[White][1];
ASSERT(PIECE_IS_BISHOP(board->square[wb]));
winnerKSQ = KING_POS(board,White);
loserKSQ = KING_POS(board,Black);
if (SQUARE_COLOUR(wb) == SQUARE_COLOUR(A8)){
winnerKSQ = ((winnerKSQ)^0x0F);
loserKSQ = ((loserKSQ)^0x0F);
}
eval += KBNKingposMatrix[SquareTo64[loserKSQ]];
eval += KBNKingposMatrix[SquareTo64[loserKSQ]];
eval += KingDistanceBonus[DISTANCE(KING_POS(board,White),KING_POS(board,Black))];
}
else{ // KKBN?
if (board->number[BlackKnight12] == 1 && board->number[BlackBishop12] == 1){
eval = ValueWin;
bb = board->piece[Black][1];
ASSERT(PIECE_IS_BISHOP(board->square[bb]));
winnerKSQ = KING_POS(board,Black);
loserKSQ = KING_POS(board,White);
if (SQUARE_COLOUR(bb) == SQUARE_COLOUR(A8)){
winnerKSQ = ((winnerKSQ)^0x0F);
loserKSQ = ((loserKSQ)^0x0F);
}
eval += KBNKingposMatrix[SquareTo64[loserKSQ]];
eval += KBNKingposMatrix[SquareTo64[loserKSQ]];
eval += KingDistanceBonus[DISTANCE(KING_POS(board,White),KING_POS(board,Black))];
}
}
if (COLOUR_IS_WHITE(board->turn)){
return (eval);
}
else{
return (-eval);
}
} // End of KBNK block
.
.
.
I see that Teemu Pudas (Vempele) writes in the same thread that he adapted the code so that would imply it is already in one of the CMLX versions. I did not remember that... He probably placed the code better, my version was placed somewhere as one of of the 'win' recognizers/situations early in eval.cpp but I don't know how Teemu did it.As you can see it is a small piece of code, if the values in the KBNKingposmatrix are doubled you don't need to call the piece square matrix twice but that was just for tuning purposes not changed yet. Maybe some finetuning is possible by using the KBNK pst value of the winning King too, a small bonus for occupying the centre as well as advancing towards the enemy King may work especially if all pieces somehow ended up clustered in the 'wrong' corner where mate is not possible, in that case the white King should just back off a little first with his troops and occupy the centre, at least I think that is the human theory.