Page 1 of 4
Octochess r4529
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:20 am
by Codesquid
After almost a month since the first release, there's finally a new version of
Octochess.
Changes:
- Improved playing strength
- Experimental UCI implementation
- Many small bugs fixed
- Add alternative popcount implemention for systems without POPCOUNT.
- If compiled as 32bit program, clamp transposition table size to 1GB
- Some code refactoring
You can download the new version from
http://octochess.org/octochess-r4529.7z, the archive contains both Windows and Linux binaries.
Re: Octochess r4529
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 1:14 am
by Jim Ablett
Octochess (r4558) - compiled from latest src pulled from SVN.
Windows/Linux 32/64 bit
Finally got some 32 bit compiles made.
Download:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5047625/octochess-r4558-ja.zip
Mirror:
http://cl.ly/FhWH/octochess-r4558-ja.zip
Jim.
Re: Octochess r4529
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 1:29 am
by Graham Banks
Thanks Jim. Any issues using smaller hash sizes than 1gb with the 32-bit version?
Any idea of its strength?
Re: Octochess r4529
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 1:32 am
by Jim Ablett
Graham Banks wrote:
Thanks Jim. Any issues using smaller hash sizes than 1gb with the 32-bit version?
Hi Graham,
I haven't noticed anything. Uses 362mb out of the box on my 32 bit Xp system.
Jim.
Re: Octochess r4529
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:48 am
by Graham Banks
Jim Ablett wrote:Graham Banks wrote:
Thanks Jim. Any issues using smaller hash sizes than 1gb with the 32-bit version?
Hi Graham,
I haven't noticed anything. Uses 362mb out of the box on my 32 bit Xp system.
Jim.
Any idea of its strength roughly?
Re: Octochess r4529
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:52 am
by Jim Ablett
Graham Banks wrote:Jim Ablett wrote:Graham Banks wrote:
Thanks Jim. Any issues using smaller hash sizes than 1gb with the 32-bit version?
Hi Graham,
I haven't noticed anything. Uses 362mb out of the box on my 32 bit Xp system.
Jim.
Any idea of its strength roughly?
I played some test games against Nejmet and it seems of similar strength.
Jim.
Re: Octochess r4529
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 3:13 am
by Graham Banks
Jim Ablett wrote:Graham Banks wrote:
Any idea of its strength roughly?
I played some test games against Nejmet and it seems of similar strength.
Jim.
Thanks Jim.
Re: Octochess r4529
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 10:31 am
by geots
Jim Ablett wrote:Graham Banks wrote:Jim Ablett wrote:Graham Banks wrote:
Thanks Jim. Any issues using smaller hash sizes than 1gb with the 32-bit version?
Hi Graham,
I haven't noticed anything. Uses 362mb out of the box on my 32 bit Xp system.
Jim.
Any idea of its strength roughly?
I played some test games against Nejmet and it seems of similar strength.
Jim.
Look, it can't be true that I am ok either way with either his download or yours. Speaking of 64bit now. One of the 2 I will be better off using. No time to be modest. I really need to know. Which?
Best,
george
Re: Octochess r4529
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 6:19 pm
by Jim Ablett
Look, it can't be true that I am ok either way with either his download or yours. Speaking of 64bit now. One of the 2 I will be better off using. No time to be modest. I really need to know. Which?
Hi George,
I didn't test my 64 bit bit version against Tim's this time, I was preoccupied just trying to a 32 bit version working.
I would load them both up and see which one has the highest knps and is the most stable & use that one.
Mine maybe slightly slower than normal as I just noticed I used my 32-bit edited source for the 64 bit compile.
This uses 'C' bitscan routines instead of 'Asm' which is a tad slower. Would be interesting to see if it is still faster than Tim's.
Jim.
Re: Octochess r4529
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:06 pm
by geots
Jim Ablett wrote:Look, it can't be true that I am ok either way with either his download or yours. Speaking of 64bit now. One of the 2 I will be better off using. No time to be modest. I really need to know. Which?
Hi George,
I didn't test my 64 bit bit version against Tim's this time, I was preoccupied just trying to a 32 bit version working.
I would load them both up and see which one has the highest knps and is the most stable & use that one.
Mine maybe slightly slower than normal as I just noticed I used my 32-bit edited source for the 64 bit compile.
This uses 'C' bitscan routines instead of 'Asm' which is a tad slower. Would be interesting to see if it is still faster than Tim's.
Jim.
I could do it that way to check it. But instead just run the exes and in console mode type in "go depth 22" and it will run thru 22 depths. When it has finished, it shows the nodes per second. Then you can do the same thing with the other exe and tell which is faster. Instead of having to load and maybe unload the engine. (Just be sure if it doesn't look right- that one of the exes is not running the info on 4 cores.)
Thanks, Jim
george