Andscacs - New version 0.921 with source

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Harvey Williamson, bob

Scally
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:34 pm
Location: Bermondsey, London
Contact:

Re: Andscacs - New version 0.921 with source

Post by Scally » Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:37 pm

Yes thanks, I realised after your comment before ..

Cheers,

Al
Alan Cooper
My Chess Computers

JohnS
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 1:08 am

Re: Andscacs - New version 0.921 with source

Post by JohnS » Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:53 pm

cdani wrote:
kasinp wrote:... irrespective of the illegal move played in one of the TCEC games.
The bug of the illegal move was there from very old versions. Only that seems that a lot of cores and bad luck are necessary to manifest it.
Daniel

Is the bug fixed now and will there be an update?

Thanks.
John

User avatar
cdani
Posts: 2036
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 9:24 am
Location: Andorra
Contact:

Re: Andscacs - New version 0.921 with source

Post by cdani » Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:01 pm

JohnS wrote: Is the bug fixed now and will there be an update?
Finally:
http://www.andscacs.com/downloads/andscacs0921.zip
http://www.andscacs.com/downloads/andscacs921src.zip

I solved the bug by using a search session counter:

Code: Select all

if (ssbase[i].acabatbe == numacabatbe)
Is not necessary to update unless you have a lof of cores and the illegal move problem.

tpoppins
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2015 8:11 pm
Location: upstate

Re: Andscacs - New version 0.921 with source

Post by tpoppins » Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:03 pm

kasinp wrote:Here is what I see:

a) 4-CPU direct comparison between 0.921 and 0.92 is not available (ver. 0.92 not having been tested with 4CPUs)
This happened because v0.921 came out shortly (less than two months) after v0.92. There were only a couple of dozen 40/40 games completed with v0.92 at that point; further testing was abandoned in favor of the new version.
kasinp wrote:b) However, a comparison between single CPU performance indicates that ver. 0.921 (based on some 300 games) is 23 ELO *below* that of 0.92.
After 850 games the gap has been reduced to 15 Elo, which is still well within the +/-19 error bars.
kasinp wrote:This would support the hypothesis that 0.921 may have have introduced an issue, irrespective of the illegal move played in one of the TCEC games.
Such an issue might be very hard to confirm. According to the author the gain from v0.92 to v0.921 is only 5 Elo, and that would take more than 10,000 games to verify -- an unrealistic proposal at 40/40. If there is indeed an issue (which I doubt) it certainly doesn't show up on the single-core 40/4 list where both versions reached exactly the same rating after 1000+ games.

Thank you, Daniel.

Post Reply