Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 10:41:07 01/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2001 at 06:28:46, Brian Kostick wrote: >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. It's a bug in the new Winboard. It passed the SAN notation even to chess engines that don't understand it.
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.