Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:35:19 09/10/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 10, 2001 at 13:07:09, Dann Corbit wrote: > >Only tactical tests. I have no idea if it plays better in actual games. I >don't remember what all the scores were, but I do remember WAC, which got >295/300 (and crafty without the Bruce Moreland extensions gets 293 on my >machine). > >>>>>>>What did you change? > >Not sure what all I had to change. Here is the source code: >ftp://cap.connx.com/pub/chess-engines/new-approach/C18_10.ZIP > >You can change the binary that is created by changing the macro as follows: > >#define DO_BM_EXTENSIONS >does Bruce Moreland ideas > >#define DO_EXTENSIONS >does the regular extension ideas > >Do not define both macros. > >If neither macro is defined, you get the regular crafty. > >>>>>>>How did you get SMP to work? > >Well, it compiles, links, and runs -- but I have not tried it on a multiple CPU >machine, so maybe it does not work with SMP. It almost certainly doesn't, unless you changed searchmp.c as you changed search.c... and for the BM form, it would be necessary to pass the "singular move" to the search threads, which would require an addition to the 'split block' structure plus additions to the code that actually handle the tread stuff as well. If it does as well or better on WAC, that is definitely a positive sign that something is working reasonably well. On all the SE versions I played with this past year, WAC ended up worse each time I turned SE on. BTW crafty generally gets 299/300 on a 750mhz machine. If you are using an 800 and getting 295/300 something seems amiss...
This page took 0.01 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.