Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.
Moderator: Ras
Sylwy
Posts: 4812 Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:19 pm
Location: IAȘI - the historical capital of MOLDOVA
Full name: Silvian Rucsandescu
Post
by Sylwy » Mon Dec 28, 2015 8:42 am
Works !
THANK YOU, Daniel !
What can I do without your binaries ????
La patrie reconnaissante !
Charly
Posts: 1091 Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 4:30 pm
Location: Bretagne
Post
by Charly » Mon Dec 28, 2015 9:23 am
Many thanks to Dr. Robert Hyatt for the long term work since years on Crafty which is always a must have !
Many Thanks to Daniel José for the compils also !
Werner
Posts: 2967 Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:09 pm
Location: Germany
Full name: Werner Schüle
Post
by Werner » Mon Dec 28, 2015 9:27 am
Thank you Daniel,
there is quite a difference between you compile from yesterday and today:
Crafty v25.0 (1 cpus) crafty-25.0-x64.exe 1.457.664 27.12.2015 11:33
White(1): bench
Running benchmark. . .
......
Total nodes: 394143343
Raw nodes per second: 5889769
Total elapsed time: 66.92
time used = 1:07
and
Crafty v25.0 (1 cpus) crafty25_64.exe 1.227.264 28.12.2015 08:20
White(1): bench
Running benchmark. . .
......
Total nodes: 143372555
Raw nodes per second: 4828984
Total elapsed time: 29.69
time used = 30.27
looks like another file set for the benchmark in the latest sources?
Or here from a test position:
FEN: r2qrbk1/5ppp/pn1p4/np2P1P1/3p4/5N2/PPB2PP1/R1BQR1K1 w - - 0 1
Crafty-25.0: new version 12-28
26 03:35 1.040.192.134 4.831.137 +0,76 0. ... () 1. e6 Rxe6 2. Rxe6 fxe6 3. Qe1 Qc8 4. Qxa5 Qxc2 5. Qxb6 e5 6. Qb7 Rc8 7. Ne1 Qc6 8. Qxc6 Rxc6 9. Nd3 Rc8 10. f3 Rc4 11. b3 Rc3 12. Nb4 a5 13. Nd5 Rc2
26 13:35 4.143.915.662 5.084.247 +3,48 0. ... () 1. Bxh7+ Kxh7 2. g6+ fxg6 3. Ng5+ Kg8 4. Qf3 Qxg5 5. Bxg5 dxe5 6. Qe4 Re6 7. Rec1 Nac4 8. a4 Rae8 9. axb5 axb5 10. b3 Ba3 11. Rc2 Nd6 12. Qg4 b4 13. Rd1 Nd5 14. f3
Crafty-25.0: compile from yesterday 12-27
16 00:12 70.887.122 6.002.296 +1,01 0. ... () 1. e6 fxe6 2. Bxh7+ Kxh7 3. g6+ Kxg6 4. Qd3+ Kf7 5. Ng5+ Ke7 6. Nxe6 Kd7 7. Nxd8 Rxe1+ 8. Kh2 Rxd8 9. Qd2 Rxc1 10. Rxc1 Nc6 11. Kg3
16 00:32 189.976.860 5.972.237 +3,24 0. ... () 1. Bxh7+ Kxh7 2. g6+ fxg6 3. Ng5+ Kg8 4. Qf3 Qf6 5. exf6 Rxe1+ 6. Kh2 gxf6 7. Qxf6 Ra7 8. Ne6 Rf7 9. Qxg6+ Bg7 10. Rb1 Nd5 11. Bd2
16 00:32 189.979.141 5.972.308 +3,24 0. ... () 1. Bxh7+ Kxh7 2. g6+ fxg6 3. Ng5+ Kg8 4. Qf3 Qf6 5. exf6 Rxe1+ 6. Kh2 gxf6 7. Qxf6 Ra7 8. Ne6 Rf7 9. Qxg6+ Bg7 10. Rb1 Nd5 11. Bd2
So what happened here and which compile should I use for my tests?
Werner
cdani
Posts: 2204 Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 10:24 am
Location: Andorra
Post
by cdani » Mon Dec 28, 2015 9:53 am
Werner wrote: Thank you Daniel,
there is quite a difference between you compile from yesterday and today:
Crafty v25.0 (1 cpus) crafty-25.0-x64.exe 1.457.664 27.12.2015 11:33
White(1): bench
Running benchmark. . .
......
Total nodes: 394143343
Raw nodes per second: 5889769
Total elapsed time: 66.92
time used = 1:07
and
Crafty v25.0 (1 cpus) crafty25_64.exe 1.227.264 28.12.2015 08:20
White(1): bench
Running benchmark. . .
......
Total nodes: 143372555
Raw nodes per second: 4828984
Total elapsed time: 29.69
time used = 30.27
looks like another file set for the benchmark in the latest sources?
Or here from a test position:
FEN: r2qrbk1/5ppp/pn1p4/np2P1P1/3p4/5N2/PPB2PP1/R1BQR1K1 w - - 0 1
Crafty-25.0: new version 12-28
26 03:35 1.040.192.134 4.831.137 +0,76 0. ... () 1. e6 Rxe6 2. Rxe6 fxe6 3. Qe1 Qc8 4. Qxa5 Qxc2 5. Qxb6 e5 6. Qb7 Rc8 7. Ne1 Qc6 8. Qxc6 Rxc6 9. Nd3 Rc8 10. f3 Rc4 11. b3 Rc3 12. Nb4 a5 13. Nd5 Rc2
26 13:35 4.143.915.662 5.084.247 +3,48 0. ... () 1. Bxh7+ Kxh7 2. g6+ fxg6 3. Ng5+ Kg8 4. Qf3 Qxg5 5. Bxg5 dxe5 6. Qe4 Re6 7. Rec1 Nac4 8. a4 Rae8 9. axb5 axb5 10. b3 Ba3 11. Rc2 Nd6 12. Qg4 b4 13. Rd1 Nd5 14. f3
Crafty-25.0: compile from yesterday 12-27
16 00:12 70.887.122 6.002.296 +1,01 0. ... () 1. e6 fxe6 2. Bxh7+ Kxh7 3. g6+ Kxg6 4. Qd3+ Kf7 5. Ng5+ Ke7 6. Nxe6 Kd7 7. Nxd8 Rxe1+ 8. Kh2 Rxd8 9. Qd2 Rxc1 10. Rxc1 Nc6 11. Kg3
16 00:32 189.976.860 5.972.237 +3,24 0. ... () 1. Bxh7+ Kxh7 2. g6+ fxg6 3. Ng5+ Kg8 4. Qf3 Qf6 5. exf6 Rxe1+ 6. Kh2 gxf6 7. Qxf6 Ra7 8. Ne6 Rf7 9. Qxg6+ Bg7 10. Rb1 Nd5 11. Bd2
16 00:32 189.979.141 5.972.308 +3,24 0. ... () 1. Bxh7+ Kxh7 2. g6+ fxg6 3. Ng5+ Kg8 4. Qf3 Qf6 5. exf6 Rxe1+ 6. Kh2 gxf6 7. Qxf6 Ra7 8. Ne6 Rf7 9. Qxg6+ Bg7 10. Rb1 Nd5 11. Bd2
So what happened here and which compile should I use for my tests?
I have done a pgo compile with the latest sources. I really don't know from where comes the difference.
Werner
Posts: 2967 Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:09 pm
Location: Germany
Full name: Werner Schüle
Post
by Werner » Mon Dec 28, 2015 10:17 am
cdani wrote: I have done a pgo compile with the latest sources. I really don't know from where comes the difference.
Of course - if we have changes in the source only Bob can give us an answer.
And the fist compile has been from the Dec 25th sources which was a test version. So I should not compare - and use the last compile for the tests.
Werner
F.Huber
Posts: 862 Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:50 pm
Location: Austria
Full name: Franz Huber
Post
by F.Huber » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:42 am
Many thanks Daniel, this one is indeed working (i.e. accepts the hash settings)!
But why did you disable the 'core' setting, i.e. restricting it to a single-CPU version?
Franz
cdani
Posts: 2204 Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 10:24 am
Location: Andorra
Post
by cdani » Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:03 pm
F.Huber wrote:
Many thanks Daniel, this one is indeed working (i.e. accepts the hash settings)!
But why did you disable the 'core' setting, i.e. restricting it to a single-CPU version?
Franz
Because it was crashing, dunno why. Maybe later I will try to find what happens, or maybe someone wants to try.
BBauer
Posts: 658 Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:58 pm
Post
by BBauer » Mon Dec 28, 2015 1:59 pm
After a long time I came back to Crafty
It has beautifull output is the fastest in nps and reaches depth 124 in no time. Since I do no longer have the outdatet nalimov bases I tried without.
Look!
Code: Select all
Initializing multiple threads.
System is SMP, not NUMA.
Warning-- xboard 'cores' option disabled
max threads set to 4.
SMP terminate extra threads when idle.
Warning-- xboard 'memory' option disabled
hash table memory = 1G bytes (64M entries).
Warning-- xboard 'memory' option disabled
pawn hash table memory = 384M bytes (16M entries).
EGTB cache memory = 32M bytes.
null move: R = 3 + depth / 6
search time set to 300.00.
pondering disabled.
book learning disabled
book file disabled.
Crafty v25.0 (4 cpus)
White(1): setboard 8/2p5/6K1/8/8/5k2/8/8 w - - 0 1
White(1): d
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
8 | | . | | . | | . | | . |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
7 | . | |<P>| | . | | . | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
6 | | . | | . | | . |-K-| . |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
5 | . | | . | | . | | . | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
4 | | . | | . | | . | | . |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
3 | . | | . | | . |<K>| . | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
2 | | . | | . | | . | | . |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
1 | . | | . | | . | | . | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
a b c d e f g h
White(1): go
time surplus 0.00 time limit 5:00 (5:00)
depth time score variation (1)
starting thread 1 2 3 <done>
124-> 0.86/5:00 0.00 1. Kf5 Kf2 2. Ke5 Ke2 3. Kd5 Kf3 4. Kc6
Kf4 5. Kxc7 Kg5 6. Kd7 Kh4 7. Kd6 Kg5
8. Kc7 Kh4 9. Kd7 Kg3 10. Kd6 Kh4 11. Kc5
Kg5 12. Kd4 Kg6 13. Ke3 Kg5 14. Kf3 Kh4
15. Kf4 Kh3 16. Kf5 Kh4 17. Kf4 <3-fold>
time=0.86(57%) nodes=4066868(4.1M) fh1=81% pred=0 nps=4.7M
chk=7.3K qchk=0 fp=45.7K mcp=0 50move=0
LMReductions: 1/455.0K 2/682.4K 3/500.6K 4/76.6K
null-move (R): 3/139.7K 4/125.8K 5/89.8K 6/67.9K 7/50.0K
8/39.3K 9/29.7K 10/22.1K 11/17.9K 12/12.1K 13/10.2K
14/7.7K 15/17.1K
splits=267.7K(246.5K) aborts=3.0K joins=38.7K data=18%(18%)
White(1): Kf5
time used: 0.88
Black(1):
Everything is great
or not?
Kind regards
Bernhard
BBauer
Posts: 658 Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:58 pm
Post
by BBauer » Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:19 pm
Next try, adding a pawn on a2
[d]8/2p5/6K1/8/8/5k2/P7/8 w - - 0 1
Code: Select all
38-> 3.07/5:00 12.68 1. Kf5 Ke3 2. Ke5 c6 3. a4 Kd3 4. a5 c5
5. a6 c4 6. a7 c3 7. a8=Q c2 8. Qd5+ Ke3
9. Qg2 Kd3 10. Qg5 Kc3 11. Qc1 Kb3 12. Qa1
Kc4 13. Ke4 Kb5 14. Qb2+ Kc6 15. Qxc2+ Kd6
16. Qd2+ Kc6 17. Qd5+ Kb6 18. Kd3 Kc7
19. Kc4 Kc8 20. Kb5 Kc7 21. Kc5 Kb8
22. Qd7 Ka8
39 4.27/5:00 12.68 1. Kf5 Ke3 2. Ke5 c6 3. a4 Kd3 4. a5 c5
5. a6 c4 6. a7 c3 7. a8=Q c2 8. Qd5+ Ke3
9. Qg2 Kd3 10. Qg5 Kc3 11. Qc1 Kb3 12. Qa1
Kc4 13. Ke4 Kb5 14. Qb2+ Kc6 15. Qxc2+ Kd6
16. Qd2+ Kc6 17. Qd5+ Kb6 18. Kd3 Kc7
19. Kc4 Kc8 20. Kb5 Kc7 21. Kc5 Kb8
22. Qd7 Ka8
39-> 4.28/5:00 12.68 1. Kf5 Ke3 2. Ke5 c6 3. a4 Kd3 4. a5 c5
5. a6 c4 6. a7 c3 7. a8=Q c2 8. Qd5+ Ke3
9. Qg2 Kd3 10. Qg5 Kc3 11. Qc1 Kb3 12. Qa1
Kc4 13. Ke4 Kb5 14. Qb2+ Kc6 15. Qxc2+ Kd6
16. Qd2+ Kc6 17. Qd5+ Kb6 18. Kd3 Kc7
19. Kc4 Kc8 20. Kb5 Kc7 21. Kc5 Kb8
22. Qd7 Ka8
time=5:00(100%) nodes=4319111096(4.3B) fh1=99% pred=0 nps=14.4M
chk=787.4M qchk=304.3M fp=2.2B mcp=28.5K 50move=0
LMReductions: 1/25.2M 2/49.1M 3/72.6M 4/62.0M 5/1.4M 6/4.5K
null-move (R): 3/116.4M 4/35.2M 5/913.8K 6/98.8K 7/16.9K
8/2.7K 9/64
splits=1.0M(993.0K) aborts=40.3K joins=50.2K data=29%(29%)
White(1): Kf5
4 sec to finish ply 39. After 5:00 min nothing has changed.
Kind regards
Bernhard
bob
Posts: 20943 Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL
Post
by bob » Mon Dec 28, 2015 5:05 pm
cdani wrote: All the problems solved! At least I was able to run well on cutechess and Arena.
http://www.andscacs.com/crafty/crafty25.zip
4 versions this time:
crafty25_32.exe: 32 bit compile able to run on only 1 cpu.
crafty25_32n.exe: 32 bit compile able to run on only 1 cpu, without popcnt for old cpus.
crafty25_64.exe: 64 bit compile able to run on up to 64 cpu.
crafty25_64n.exe: 64 bit compile able to run on up to 64 cpu, without popcnt for old cpus.
The 32 bit ones are compatible with Windows XP
I had to change size_t by unsigned long long, nothing that I was not aware but I forget
I didn't notice previously because as memory command was not working, it didn't crash. Not it works well.
Is compiled with Visual Studio 2013.
Just for fun, which compiler doesn't get "size_t"???