Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 04:03:23 01/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2002 at 22:16:08, Scott Gasch wrote: > >I'm more than open to suggestions about what else to try -- I'd be grateful for >any ideas. > I haven't actually implemented this myself yet, but I will: I think it would be a good idea if the engine made a compact log different things (well, most do already), but specifically off how many nodes was searched/pondered. Because then you can _always_ recreate the exact same environment for your engine, as when the bug happened. You can even have it done automatically, by having a command that let's the engine process the log, that is, reads how many nodes was searched now, and searches exactly that many nodes. Another thing I have done is a command to save and load the hashtable to a file. I was able to reproduce a bug a couple of weeks ago, even though the environment wasn't exactly the same. I just searched for 5 seconds on every move, until the move where the bug happened. Luckily, it made the same mistake, the bug was in effect. But this was at move 80 or so, and it would be a pain to recreate this environment everytime I started the debugger. So I saved the hashtable, and everytime I started the debugger, I loaded the hashtable also. Of course this can be done more systematically by not just saving the hashtable, but the entire state of the program. Pawn hashtables, repetition information etc. I eventually tracked down the bug in about 12 hours or so. /David
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.