Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:21:52 10/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 25, 2004 at 04:22:36, Tony Werten wrote: >On October 25, 2004 at 03:27:00, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>On October 25, 2004 at 02:36:44, Tony Werten wrote: >> >>>Hi Ed, >>> >>>have you made a testrun of 1 game, (hope it reproduces) under the different >>>settings. >>> >>>Most likely the logfiles will show a different (lower) knode speed. I can make >>>up several excuses for that. >>> >>>- At startup, chessengine and interface are fixed to a different processor, >>>meaning the second chessprogram gets the load of the interface as well (or any >>>other process that the interface initialises). >>> >>>- Engine 2 is initialised on a crappy memory alignment. >>> >>>- Time related rounding errors are every time rounded in 1 the first engines >>>favor. >>> >>>- All communication is handled as engine 1 first then engine 2 ( rather than >>>engine on the move, engine not to move ) so during the whole game, engine 1 gets >>>every information earlier than engine 2 >>> >>> >>>If you feel the need, I'm pretty sure I can come up with some more :) >>> >>>Tony >> >> >>But my procedure has been always 100% the same except for the loaded engine at >>program start. Also I always reboot before I start a match. The issues you >>address were valid in match-1, match-2 and match-3, still there is this >>difference of 4.7%. >> >>What happened to Xinix? I can not believe your ranking, has fatherhood troubled >>your astuteness? Programming while feeding babies? > >:) > >Even with 6 years of experience, 1.5 month isn't enough for a complete rewrite, >changing from Delphi to C++, from single to dual and from x88 to bitboards. Why do you take task that is too hard for you? If I understand correctly you write a lot of code and then test and discover a lot of bugs. I think the correct way to program is to write something small and test that you do not have serious bugs. other ways mean that you probably need to spend more time on your program to have something free of bugs unless you are a genius. > >I could have played with an old version, but that would have been rather >pointless. I think that it is pointless to play with a new version that you know that it is weaker. I understand using a version that you are not sure if it is better but not using a version that you know that it is weaker or a version that is totally untested. The 2nd weekend was already a lot better, with the engine playing >something that resembled chess, but there were still a lot of timing issues and >so on. > >Every now and then, the search would explode, (not returning) and it would >continue playing after a timeout of 6 minutes, while only actually having >reached 8 ply. It blew a good position against Nexus with 3 of those in a row :( > >All in all, I'm not unhappy with the result from 2nd weekend. It'll be better >next time. Unless you decide to do another rewrite. Personally I hate rewriting and I prefer to simply replace code step after step and test that there are no bugs in every step. I think that if I have an hard problem that means a lot of code to write then it is better not to attack the problem directly but think how to divide it to easier tasks. Uri
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.