MikeB wrote:...............................
Just a general comment not directed at anybody -Why are People are so sensitive around here? You post something the you thought would be not offensive to anybody - yet somebody gets offended by it. Or you post something that is not 100% correct but for simplicity you used plainer language and people have the need to point it out but it really does not change the point one was making. Way too much drama for me for something that is supposed to be a hobby.
Maybe, you're considered a leader and it's expected everything you write is 100% true according to people's expectatives. I't probably true your work is interesting the most and everybody want to find absolute perfection (which could never exist). So you'll find those who want a perfect analysis engine because they need it, those who want perfect correspondence chess engine (like me) with Daniel's code (which is possible when you decide IMO), those who like the fact to have a top engine which "learns" (Ouch! Can a programmer give a soul to its engine?).
There's only an answer. Continue with your excellent work the way you like it. It's YOUR branch.
MikeB wrote:...............................
Just a general comment not directed at anybody -Why are People are so sensitive around here? You post something the you thought would be not offensive to anybody - yet somebody gets offended by it. Or you post something that is not 100% correct but for simplicity you used plainer language and people have the need to point it out but it really does not change the point one was making. Way too much drama for me for something that is supposed to be a hobby.
Maybe, you're considered a leader and it's expected everything you write is 100% true according to people's expectatives. I't probably true your work is interesting the most and everybody want to find absolute perfection (which could never exist). So you'll find those who want a perfect analysis engine because they need it, those who want perfect correspondence chess engine (like me) with Daniel's code (which is possible when you decide IMO), those who like the fact to have a top engine which "learns" (Ouch! Can a programmer give a soul to its engine?).
There's only an answer. Continue with your excellent work the way you like it. It's YOUR branch.
A big thanks to Mike B for his A+ efforts.
I do second Rodolfo's request/suggestion to add Daniel's code for analysis in the future. I have mostly used DJ's Stockfish versions since he kindly released them to us. The back-and-forth analysis is of so much better quality with the new method.
A major 'thank you' is in order to Daniel Jose as well, of course, and to Rodolfo for pointing out the original problem that DJ fixed.
carldaman wrote:
A big thanks to Mike B for his A+ efforts.
I do second Rodolfo's request/suggestion to add Daniel's code for analysis in the future. I have mostly used DJ's Stockfish versions since he kindly released them to us. The back-and-forth analysis is of so much better quality with the new method.
A major 'thank you' is in order to Daniel Jose as well, of course, and to Rodolfo for pointing out the original problem that DJ fixed.
Cheers,
CL
Off topic here, but I'm about to test "CorCFish extended" with correspondence games.
Stockfish NTB vs Stockfish master: 2143 - 1736 - 6121 [0.520]
Elo difference: 14.15 +/- 4.23
10000 of 10000 games finished.
P.S: Michael, I fully support your fork and I hope you will continue with McBrain and many will download and try it.
There is a -.bmi compile available of Marco's Natural TB, I got the sources that I think belong to Marco's testresults and compiled with TDM-GCC, now on Rybka forum, but it has some eval changes from me included, which are not yet tested with nearly the same accuracy. Only 50 games Still, if Marco's resuts are even remotely reliable, this very probably would be about as strong as asmFish and if you add Jeroen Noomens book... Compile is called Natural.exe
Only 1130 kb! Bench:
===========================
Total time (ms) : 2527
Nodes searched : 4974113
Nodes/second : 1968386
TB hits : 0
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first
place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you
are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.
-- Brian W. Kernighan
Eelco de Groot wrote:if Marco's resuts are even remotely reliable
Don't count on it. I don't know what went wrong, but there is no way that his patch can improve playing strength (and certainly not by that amount).
In the test I am running, the early_mate patch (which is now in McBrain) is very slightly ahead of natural2. The early_mate patch certainly does not add Elo. But it seems to do the job of finding a mate "behind" a TB win quite well (not worse than natural2, is my impression when browsing through the games).
As a "bonus", early_mate keeps all the guarantees that the current TB implementation provides, such as the ability to reliably convert any TB win found.
carldaman wrote:
A big thanks to Mike B for his A+ efforts.
I do second Rodolfo's request/suggestion to add Daniel's code for analysis in the future. I have mostly used DJ's Stockfish versions since he kindly released them to us. The back-and-forth analysis is of so much better quality with the new method.
A major 'thank you' is in order to Daniel Jose as well, of course, and to Rodolfo for pointing out the original problem that DJ fixed.
Cheers,
CL
Off topic here, but I'm about to test "CorCFish extended" with correspondence games.
It seems Mcbrain is not displaying tbs.
Please take a look at this game, where it displays +1.47 advantage in its favour. The game is draw by repetition.
giovanni wrote:
Thanks Rodolfo. Sounds interesting. Could you detail a little more what you are doing with this project?
The same procedure as the example I posted few time ago. It usually takes no more than few minutes when there's nothing special to analyze. Why don't you join LSS server? You could try it yourself.