Cyclone 2.1 released

[kranium]

This version incorporates Dann Corbit's contribution: a UCI 'Threads' option.

His code enables setting the # of threads using the GUI, thus eliminating the need for 5 separately compiled executables (1-cpu, 2-cpus, 4-cpus, etc.)

I tested it today, and it works well. It does not affect Cyclone's strength.

It is available for download here: http://www.cyclonechess.com/

Best Regards-
Norm

[Dann Corbit]

This version incorporates Dann Corbit's contribution: a UCI 'Threads' option.

His code enables setting the # of threads using the GUI, thus eliminating the need for 5 separately compiled executables (1-cpu, 2-cpus, 4-cpus, etc.)

I tested it today, and it works well. It does not affect Cyclone's strength.

It is available for download here: http://www.cyclonechess.com/

Best Regards-
Norm

Change your download link to:
http://www.cyclonechess.com/cyclone_2.1.rar

[Eizenhammer]

This version incorporates Dann Corbit's contribution: a UCI 'Threads' option.

His code enables setting the # of threads using the GUI, thus eliminating the need for 5 separately compiled executables (1-cpu, 2-cpus, 4-cpus, etc.)

I tested it today, and it works well. It does not affect Cyclone's strength.

It is available for download here: http://www.cyclonechess.com/

Best Regards-
Norm

Well, now your Toga is uci again, should not have been too hard;
it supports mv and mp, both features that had been in toga before.
What exactly justifies a new version and a new name?

Is the mp support better now than before? has it played any games that give a base for a claim like: "improved strength"? Why a new "engine" and not just name the thing what it is: Toga with minor, untested modifications?

[kranium]

This version incorporates Dann Corbit's contribution: a UCI 'Threads' option.

His code enables setting the # of threads using the GUI, thus eliminating the need for 5 separately compiled executables (1-cpu, 2-cpus, 4-cpus, etc.)

I tested it today, and it works well. It does not affect Cyclone's strength.

It is available for download here: http://www.cyclonechess.com/

Best Regards-
Norm

Well, now your Toga is uci again, should not have been too hard;
it supports mv and mp, both features that had been in toga before.
What exactly justifies a new version and a new name?

Is the mp support better now than before? has it played any games that give a base for a claim like: "improved strength"? Why a new "engine" and not just name the thing what it is: Toga with minor, untested modifications?

If you were even a little bit informed, you might be aware that multi PV has not been functional in Toga for a long time i.e. ...since before 141beta5c.

Yes, the multi CPU has been substantially changed and improved, please compare the code, and test the engine, and the new search enhancements... perhaps then you'd be in a position to offer constructive criticism.

It has indeed been been tested with many thousands of games by myself, and other independent beta testers, Stefan Andeer taking the largest role.
I have spent an enormous amount of man hours improving and testing this program. I don't appreciate you unfounded comments. they're simply wrong.
Hurling such accusations in complete ignorance is rude and hurtful.

If you look around, the majority here greatly appreciate the improvements that have been made...not sure what your issue is?

Norm

[Eizenhammer]

multi PV has not been functional in Toga for some time now...since before 141beta5c.
Yes, the multi CPU has been substantially changed and improved, please compare the code.
It has been tested with many thousands of games by myself, and other beta independant testers.

There is an enormous amount of change...please view the source code before jumping to conclusions.

I am sure that the code looks a little bit different, you changed it to winboard and did probably a lot of "changes" for obfuscational reasons before, and now after the reconversion to the original there are certainly some traces of this highly effective conversion left, I have no interest to find them and compare them.
I have indeed played some games: it got the expected 50% against the Toga it is directly "derived" from and the expected complete crush against the latest rybka. I dont want to waste my time, if in reality there is no real improvement but a claimed one, and this claim is made only for justification after having been caught in something wrong.
Again: why do a feature restore and two little search tweaks justify a new "engine" ?

[kranium]

I , too have played games, many many thousands of games, and I get a big improvement over the original Togas, against which i primarily test,
I can provide results and games to substantiate my 'claim', but i don't need to prove it to you or anyone.

if my claim is incorrect or deceitful, as you insinuate, it will soon be obvious for all to see, won't it? ...aren't you jumping the gun here?

if in your opinion 'derivatives' are a waste of time, fine, you're entitled to your opinion...but I disagree completely. It's the whole idea of open-source...just like what's happening with Stockfish at the moment, it's being very well received.

you post here in a public forum that there are only minor changes and you admit haven't examined the source code!?

[Eizenhammer]

but i don't need to prove it to you or anyone.

I really thought that this is all it should be about for you: prove something.
All I know about you until now is that you got caught in the act and then in an act of dubious justification got involved in an unsuccessful witchhunt without providing any significant proves. A magician who has been found with the wand in his hands gives a very strange picture in such a campaign.

So you dont have to wonder if silly and uninformed people like me dont trust every word of you at first hearing. I see that you have answered the question why you forked Toga instead of just adding to the main code in a more competent thread, even there you don't mention the main reason: that you could hardly have sold something with Toga in the name and that the fork was more than natural for this very reason and you stuck with it afterwards.

But be it: As I really like the open source idea and you may finally have done something really useful, I'll just try to enjoy the new and coming versions, and you may be able to get the reputation you want in the future, when your poor start gets outweighed by positive impressions.

Have most of the uci parameters been left out for some reason or is there a chance that you reoffer them in the future?

[slobo]

but i don't need to prove it to you or anyone.

I really thought that this is all it should be about for you: prove something.
All I know about you until now is that you got caught in the act and then in an act of dubious justification got involved in an unsuccessful witchhunt without providing any significant proves. A magician who has been found with the wand in his hands gives a very strange picture in such a campaign.

So you dont have to wonder if silly and uninformed people like me dont trust every word of you at first hearing. I see that you have answered the question why you forked Toga instead of just adding to the main code in a more competent thread, even there you don't mention the main reason: that you could hardly have sold something with Toga in the name and that the fork was more than natural for this very reason and you stuck with it afterwards.

But be it: As I really like the open source idea and you may finally have done something really useful, I'll just try to enjoy the new and coming versions, and you may be able to get the reputation you want in the future, when your poor start gets outweighed by positive impressions.

Have most of the uci parameters been left out for some reason or is there a chance that you reoffer them in the future?

Do you expect an answer from Norman?
I hope you don´t. Otherwise I´d say you have problems in getting well that we call "reality".