Author: Bernhard Bauer
Date: 00:58:54 05/31/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 28, 1999 at 09:38:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 28, 1999 at 07:18:38, Bernhard Bauer wrote: > >>On May 28, 1999 at 02:48:23, Bernhard Bauer wrote: >> >>>On May 27, 1999 at 20:30:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On May 27, 1999 at 13:36:03, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 27, 1999 at 08:07:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 27, 1999 at 07:32:02, Bernhard Bauer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On May 27, 1999 at 07:19:17, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On May 27, 1999 at 07:04:14, Bernhard Bauer wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On May 26, 1999 at 19:14:14, Michel Chassey wrote: >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>> +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ >>>>> 8 | | | | | | | | | >>>>> +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ >>>>> 7 | *K| | | | | | | | >>>>> +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ >>>>> 6 | | | | *P| | | | | >>>>> +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ >>>>> 5 | *P| | | P | | *P| | | >>>>> +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ >>>>> 4 | P | | | P | | P | | | >>>>> +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ >>>>> 3 | | | | | | | | | >>>>> +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ >>>>> 2 | | | | | | | | | >>>>> +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ >>>>> 1 | | K | | | | | | | >>>>> +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ >>>>> a b c d e f g h >>>> >>>> >>>>Thanks Eugene... so the executable seems to be ok. Now I wonder what caused >>>>this problem in the first place... >>> >>>Looks like the executables from Bob Hyatt's site are ok. >>>the problem occurs with my own executable. >>> >>>I use >>>Optimierender Microsoft (R) 32-Bit C/C++-Compiler, Version 12.00.8168, fuer x86 >>>CFLAGS = /O2 /G6 /Gr /Ob2 >>>COPTS = /MT /DSMP /DCPUS=2 /DFAST >>>and do a "nmake wcraftyx" >>> >>>and still get the problem. >>> >>> (2) 23 55.62 1.05 1. Kb2 Ka8 2. Kc2 Kb8 3. Kd2 Kc8 4. >>> Kd3 Kc7 5. Ke3 Kd7 6. Kf2 Ke7 7. Ke1 >>> Kd7 8. Kd1 Kc7 9. Ke2 Kd7 10. Kf3 Ke7 >>> 11. Kf2 Kd7 12. Ke3 >>> 23-> 1:45 1.05 1. Kb2 Ka8 2. Kc2 Kb8 3. Kd2 Kc8 4. >>> Kd3 Kc7 5. Ke3 Kd7 6. Kf2 Ke7 7. Ke1 >>> Kd7 8. Kd1 Kc7 9. Ke2 Kd7 10. Kf3 Ke7 >>> 11. Kf2 Kd7 12. Ke3 >>> (3) 24 1:45 1.05 1. Kb2 Ka8 2. Kc2 Kb8 3. Kd2 Kc8 4. >>> Kd3 Kc7 5. Ke3 Kd7 6. Kf2 Ke7 7. Ke1 >>> Kd7 8. Kf1 Ke7 9. Kf2 Ke8 10. Ke2 Kd7 >>> 11. Kf3 Ke7 12. Ke3 Kd7 >>> time=5:00 cpu=200% mat=1 n=90832482 fh=96% nps=302381 >>> ext-> checks=21673 recaps=0 pawns=182451 1rep=2 thrt:0 >>> predicted=0 nodes=90832482 evals=1096106 >>> endgame tablebase-> probes done=0 successful=0 >>> SMP-> split=3258 stop=215 data=11/64 cpu=10:01 elap=5:00 >>> >>>White(1): Kb2 >>> time used: 5:00 >>> >>>May be my compiler has a problem? >>>Any help is apreciated. >>> >>>Kind regards >>>Bernhard >> >>Well, with mt=1 I get similar results as Eugene. But with mt=2 I get a poor >>result compared with crafty16.6. >>Here my inputfile >> >>computer >>ponder off >>swindle off >>book off >>hash 12M >>hashp 4M >>mt 1 >>noise 9999 >>time cpu >>sd 25 >>st 300 >>setboard 8/k7/3p/p2P1p/P2P1P///K w >>d >>go >>end >> >>And here the output: >> (3) 21 5.79 1.07 1. Kb2 Ka8 2. Kc2 Kb8 3. Kd2 Kc8 4. >> Ke2 Kd7 5. Kd1 Ke7 6. Kc1 Kf6 7. Kd2 >> Kf7 8. Ke3 Kg6 9. Kd3 Kh5 10. Ke2 Kg4 >> 11. Ke3 >> 21-> 13.27 1.07 1. Kb2 Ka8 2. Kc2 Kb8 3. Kd2 Kc8 4. >> Ke2 Kd7 5. Kd1 Ke7 6. Kc1 Kf6 7. Kd2 >> Kf7 8. Ke3 Kg6 9. Kd3 Kh5 10. Ke2 Kg4 >> 11. Ke3 >> (3) 22 14.21 1.07 1. Kb2 Ka8 2. Kc2 Kb8 3. Kd2 Kc8 4. >> Kc1 Kb7 5. Kb1 Ka7 6. Ka2 Kb8 7. Kb3 >> Kc7 8. Kc4 Kb6 9. Kd3 Kc7 10. Kc3 Kb7 >> 11. Kc4 Kb6 >> 22 1:15 ++ 1. Kb1!! >> 22-> 1:17 1.46 1. Kb1 >> 23 2:03 ++ 1. Kb1!! >> (2) 23 2:31 2.89 1. Kb1 Kb8 2. Kc2 Kc8 3. Kd2 Kd8 4. >> Kc3 Kc7 5. Kd3 Kb6 6. Ke2 Ka6 7. Ke3 >> Kb7 8. Kf3 Kb6 9. Kg3 Kb7 10. Kh4 Kc8 >> 11. Kg5 Kd7 12. Kxf5 >> 23-> 2:31 2.89 1. Kb1 Kb8 2. Kc2 Kc8 3. Kd2 Kd8 4. >> Kc3 Kc7 5. Kd3 Kb6 6. Ke2 Ka6 7. Ke3 >> Kb7 8. Kf3 Kb6 9. Kg3 Kb7 10. Kh4 Kc8 >> 11. Kg5 Kd7 12. Kxf5 >> 24 2:42 2.89 1. Kb1 Kb8 2. Kc2 Kc8 3. Kd2 Kd8 4. >> Kc3 Kc7 5. Kd3 Kb6 6. Ke2 Ka6 7. Ke3 >> Kb7 8. Kf3 Kb6 9. Kg3 Kc7 10. Kh4 Kd7 >> 11. Kg5 Kd8 12. Kxf5 Kd7 >> 24-> 2:43 2.89 1. Kb1 Kb8 2. Kc2 Kc8 3. Kd2 Kd8 4. >> Kc3 Kc7 5. Kd3 Kb6 6. Ke2 Ka6 7. Ke3 >> Kb7 8. Kf3 Kb6 9. Kg3 Kc7 10. Kh4 Kd7 >> 11. Kg5 Kd8 12. Kxf5 Kd7 >> 25 2:54 2.89 1. Kb1 Kb8 2. Kc2 Kc8 3. Kd2 Kd8 4. >> Kc3 Kc7 5. Kd3 Kb6 6. Ke2 Kc7 7. Kf3 >> Kd7 8. Kg3 Ke7 9. Kh4 Kf6 10. Kh5 Ke7 >> 11. Kg6 Ke8 12. Kxf5 Kd7 13. Ke4 >> 25-> 2:55 2.89 1. Kb1 Kb8 2. Kc2 Kc8 3. Kd2 Kd8 4. >> Kc3 Kc7 5. Kd3 Kb6 6. Ke2 Kc7 7. Kf3 >> Kd7 8. Kg3 Ke7 9. Kh4 Kf6 10. Kh5 Ke7 >> 11. Kg6 Ke8 12. Kxf5 Kd7 13. Ke4 >> time=2:55 cpu=199% mat=1 n=47500484 fh=88% nps=270288 >> ext-> checks=49578 recaps=0 pawns=146 1rep=0 thrt:0 >> predicted=0 nodes=47500484 evals=11647417 >> endgame tablebase-> probes done=0 successful=0 >> SMP-> split=6040 stop=475 data=12/64 cpu=5:51 elap=2:55 >> >>White(1): Kb1 >> time used: 2:55 >>Black(1): execution complete. >> >>I think 75 sec to find Kb1! on a 2 proc PPro 223 MHz is too long. >> >>Kind regards >>Bernhard > > >Here is the problem in your case. Fine 70 takes 26 plies to solve, and there >is _no_ way to see winning the pawn any quicker. So how does crafty find it >at depth=18? Poor move ordering somewhere. What happens is it finds a way to >win the pawn with black playing poorly, then discovers that it can force a >position to be reached with black playing perfectly, where this position was >already reached with black playing poorly and it found that below this position >even if black plays perfectly it can force a win. This will be 100% repeatable >with a serial search. But with the parallel search, not at all. And you get >such wild results. Normal positions don't behave like this, but fine 70 is >solved by 'cheating' (a program with perfect move ordering will take 26 plies >no matter what). And this 'cheating' is screwed up by a non-deterministic >parallel search. Hallo Robert, thank you for your replay and explanation. I agree that it may take 26 plys to find Kb1, however, what about the search times? Now lets compare version 16.6 and 16.8 version ply time score move ------------------------------------ 16.6 23 1.17 3.31 Kb1 16.6 24 1.26 3.39 Kb1 16.6 25 1.37 3.39 Kb1 16.6 26 1.57 3.64 Kb1 nps=197622 16.8 22 56.72 1.05 Kb2 16.8 23 1:43 1.05 Kb2 16.8 24 6:24 1.05 Kb2 16.8 25 >10:00 ?? ?? nps=295048 So the question remains: Why can't Crafty16.8 with mt=2 not reach ply 26 in a reasonable time and why can't it find Kb1? Is it a compiler problem? Is it a crafty problem that only comes ub in the windows version? Since I used the same compiler for 16.6 and 16.8 it may have to do with changes in the source code. Kind regards Bernhard
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.