Author: Brian Kostick
Date: 03:28:46 01/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2001 at 03:13:28, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 11, 2001 at 01:19:22, Eugene Nalimov wrote: > >>On January 10, 2001 at 16:25:59, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On January 10, 2001 at 16:13:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On January 10, 2001 at 15:37:40, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>> >>>>>Here she be: >>>>>ftp://cap.connx.com/pub/chess-engines/new-approach/CRAFTY1.EXE >>>>> >>>>>SMP Version here: >>>>>ftp://cap.connx.com/pub/chess-engines/new-approach/CRAFTYSMP.EXE >>>> >>>>OK... I give up... what is "new approach"? >>>> >>>>:) >>> >>>Not much to it. >>> >>>I change a few compiler settings, and use the Intel C++ 5.0 compiler do most of >>>the work. She's a real honey. >>> >>>I let the compiler agressively inline and target P6 and above chips. I also >>>change the function calling convention and a few other odds and ends (you've >>>seen my dirty #include trick, for example). >>> >>>As far as making a fast binary, the Intel C++ compiler is the best there is. >>> >>>If someone else wants to try it, you should buy both versions 4.5 and version 5, >>>since there are some files that won't compile because it is an incredibly picky >>>compiler. I use this procedure: >>>Compile with Intel C++ 5.0 >>>(for all modules left not compiled): >>>Compile with Intel C++ 4.5 >>>(for all modules left not compiled): >>>Compile with Microsoft C++ 6.0 (with processor pack installed). >>> >>>Then, for obvious gaffes, I repair them one at a time and repeat the process. >>>That way, I have something that runs right off the bat, and eventually, a real >>>bolt of lightning. >> >>So, generally you are saying "Intel compiler does not work". > >The compiler is usually right when it complains about something (but refusing to >create an object is a bit extreme). > >>AFAIK, main objective for Intel compiler is to produce good results on SPEC >>benchmarks. What will happen with real-world code does not matter. > >The binaries it creates are usually quite a bit faster than Microsoft. And I >can set the optimization to the most aggressive levels and it still runs. > >I am satisfied with the quality of the Intel compilers. However, their >technical support is unfathomably lame, doubly so considering what you pay for >it. Sorry if I come to the thread at the wrong point. However, I am having trouble running link-supplied Crafty1.exe on Winboard 4.2.0beta. Maybe using that version of winboard is my fault but wcrafty-17.14.exe seems to run there ok. The simple message Winboard displays is "Illgal move 'e4' (rejected by second chess program)" where e4 move is not static. I tried various combination of wcrafty-17.14.exe and crafty1.exe. Whenever Crafty1.exe is used, No Joy. No luck as a winboard engine under CM8K either. This post is informational, not a concern for me, I just like to tinker/compare.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.