Author: Chessfun
Date: 11:24:57 01/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2004 at 14:14:01, Paul Doire wrote:
>Sarah here is my log:
>
>Logfile: Mon Jan 12 13:43:13 2004
>Total hash size 32M
>Open book: ruffian.bok
>Book version 0.3 created Sun Sep 29 02:01:08 2002
>59116 book moves, depth=60
>ruffian: [uci]
>[setoption name Hash value 32]
>Total hash size 32M
>{setoption name NalimovPath value C:\Chess\Nalimov}
>[setoption name NalimovPath value C:\Chess\Nalimov]
>Initializing tablebases: C:\Chess\Nalimov
>[setoption name NalimovCache value 4]
>Initializing tablebase cache: 4M
>[isready]
>[setoption name Clear Hash]
>[setoption name Own opening book value false]
>[position startpos moves e2e4 c7c6 d2d4 d7d5 b1d2 d5e4 d2e4 b8d7 e4g5 g8f6 f1d3
>e7e6 g1f3 f8d6 d1e2 h7h6 g5e4 f6e4 e2e4 c6c5 e1g1 d7f6 d3b5 e8e7 e4e2 d8c7 d4c5
>c7c5 c1e3 c5c7 e3d4 h8d8 c2c3 c8d7 b5c4 d7c6 f3e5 c6e4 e5g4 f6g4 e2e4]
>UCI New game
>[go movestogo 1 btime 1000 wtime 0]
>Time allocated: 0.12
>
>r2r4/ppq1kpp1/3bp2p/8/2BBQ1n1/2P5/PP3PPP/R4RK1 b - -
> Depth Time Score Best line
> 1/2 0.00 -1.42 ... Qxc4 Qxg4
> 1/6 0.00 -0.23 ... Bxh2+ Kh1 Qxc4 Qxg4
> 2/8 0.01 -0.85 ... Bxh2+ Kh1 Qf4 Qh7
> 2/8 0.01 -0.29 ... Nxh2 Bxg7 Nxf1 Rxf1
> 3/9 0.20 -0.29 ... Nxh2 Bxg7 Nxf1 Rxf1
> 4/11 0.44 -0.10 ... Nxh2 Bxg7 Nxf1 Rxf1 Bf4
>
>
>Time: 0.90, cpu 104.44%, nodes 22382, nps 24868
>Hash: 16M, used 0%, hits 13%
>EGTB: probs 0, hits 0
>
>Best move: Nxh2 score -0.10
>
>[position startpos moves e2e4 c7c6 d2d4 d7d5 b1d2 d5e4 d2e4 b8d7 e4g5 g8f6 f1d3
>e7e6 g1f3 f8d6 d1e2 h7h6 g5e4 f6e4 e2e4 c6c5 e1g1 d7f6 d3b5 e8e7 e4e2 d8c7 d4c5
>c7c5 c1e3 c5c7 e3d4 h8d8 c2c3 c8d7 b5c4 d7c6 f3e5 c6e4 e5g4 f6g4 e2e4 g4h2]
>
>
>
>
>I used 2700.ctg book and ponder on....see any problems that I don't?
>
>Thanks,
>Paul
As I remember from 1.0.0 Ruffian used 1/2 the hash set. I even remember sending
a question to the author Perola on the subject.
He replied as follows;
"This is a little bit confusing but it is not a bug. When you specify
64meg hash, Ruffian split the memory between three different hash
tables and you can only see one of them in the log file."
So your setting 32 then showing 16 M is the same as my 128, 64.
Log looks ok though I did run some small amount of tests before running my
current rating set at game 60' and never saw it lose a game on time and it
seemed comparable with the other professional engines at blitz 5'.
Personally I would not use ponder on as the author also wrote.
"There is a problem with UCI and pondering"
So my guess, the others all pondered, Ruffian didn't.
Sarah.
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.