Is that mixed time control really supported by xboard programs?SzG wrote:Hi Sven,Sven Schüle wrote:Hi Gabor,SzG wrote:Thanks Sven.
I have a problem, though. Maybe I'm doing something wrong but I have had 75 time forfeits by Jumbo out of 139 games. WinBoard 4.0.8b used under 64-bit Win10.
It may very well be the well-known problem of the engine not counting the moves fed by an external book.
I guess you did not use WinBoard 4.0.8b but a more recent version ...
Moves fed by an external book should usually not cause a problem, Jumbo should handle that correctly. It may be a problem of the time management code, though. Which TC did you use, and do you have a debug log?
It was a typo, I use 4.8.0b.
I use 40 moves in 1 minutes and 50 seconds. No debug yet but I'll switch it on for a couple of games.
New engine release: Jumbo
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 4606
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:33 am
- Location: Regensburg, Germany
- Full name: Guenther Simon
Re: New engine release: Jumbo
-
- Posts: 1334
- Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 11:14 am
Re: New engine release: Jumbo
The XBoard protocol allows a level command to be in minutes:seconds form, so a 40/1m50s would be a "level 40 1:50 0" string. UCI handles this by using milliseconds as its native time management granularity.SzG wrote:Although I have seen exceptions, in general: yes.Guenther wrote:
Is that mixed time control really supported by xboard programs?
Some believe in the almighty dollar.
I believe in the almighty printf statement.
I believe in the almighty printf statement.
-
- Posts: 4606
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:33 am
- Location: Regensburg, Germany
- Full name: Guenther Simon
Re: New engine release: Jumbo
I guess we have a missunderstanding. I thought Gabor means 40/1m +50s inc.ZirconiumX wrote:The XBoard protocol allows a level command to be in minutes:seconds form, so a 40/1m50s would be a "level 40 1:50 0" string. UCI handles this by using milliseconds as its native time management granularity.SzG wrote:Although I have seen exceptions, in general: yes.Guenther wrote:
Is that mixed time control really supported by xboard programs?
-
- Posts: 1334
- Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 11:14 am
Re: New engine release: Jumbo
Actually, XBoard protocol *also* supports that. Increment is what the third field in "level" is for. So 40 moves in 1 minute plus 50 seconds increment per move would be "level 40 1 50". But I don't see why you'd ever want to do that.Guenther wrote:I guess we have a missunderstanding. I thought Gabor means 40/1m +50s inc.ZirconiumX wrote:The XBoard protocol allows a level command to be in minutes:seconds form, so a 40/1m50s would be a "level 40 1:50 0" string. UCI handles this by using milliseconds as its native time management granularity.SzG wrote:Although I have seen exceptions, in general: yes.Guenther wrote:
Is that mixed time control really supported by xboard programs?
Some believe in the almighty dollar.
I believe in the almighty printf statement.
I believe in the almighty printf statement.
-
- Posts: 4606
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:33 am
- Location: Regensburg, Germany
- Full name: Guenther Simon
Re: New engine release: Jumbo
AFAIK it is supported since not too long ago, but a lot of programs might choke on this.ZirconiumX wrote:Actually, XBoard protocol *also* supports that. Increment is what the third field in "level" is for. So 40 moves in 1 minute plus 50 seconds increment per move would be "level 40 1 50".Guenther wrote:I guess we have a missunderstanding. I thought Gabor means 40/1m +50s inc.ZirconiumX wrote:The XBoard protocol allows a level command to be in minutes:seconds form, so a 40/1m50s would be a "level 40 1:50 0" string. UCI handles this by using milliseconds as its native time management granularity.SzG wrote:Although I have seen exceptions, in general: yes.Guenther wrote:
Is that mixed time control really supported by xboard programs?
Well people do a lot of weird things ;-)ZirconiumX wrote:But I don't see why you'd ever want to do that.
-
- Posts: 4052
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 9:57 pm
- Location: Berlin, Germany
- Full name: Sven Schüle
Re: New engine release: Jumbo
Jumbo version 0.1.10 can be downloaded. It contains the bugfix for the problem reported by Gabor (thanks again!) and some other changes, please refer to the change log on the download page.SzG wrote:I have sent you a winboard debug.
-
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 9:32 am
Re: New engine release: Jumbo
Hi Sven,
Did you every compare bitboards verses mailbox in Jumbo ?
What was the verdict ?
Regards
Laurie
Did you every compare bitboards verses mailbox in Jumbo ?
What was the verdict ?
Regards
Laurie
-
- Posts: 4052
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 9:57 pm
- Location: Berlin, Germany
- Full name: Sven Schüle
Re: New engine release: Jumbo
No, I didn't. Version 0.4.0 as well as my current development version are still mailbox. Switching to bitboards is still on my todo list, and it will take quite a while until I can start, maybe some months.lauriet wrote:Did you ever compare bitboards verses mailbox in Jumbo ?
What was the verdict ?
-
- Posts: 6991
- Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:04 pm
Re: New engine release: Jumbo
Or in 2022Sven Schüle wrote:No, I didn't. Version 0.4.0 as well as my current development version are still mailbox. Switching to bitboards is still on my todo list, and it will take quite a while until I can start, maybe some months.lauriet wrote:Did you ever compare bitboards verses mailbox in Jumbo ?
What was the verdict ?
-
- Posts: 4052
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 9:57 pm
- Location: Berlin, Germany
- Full name: Sven Schüle
Re: New engine release: Jumbo
Of course, since "some" <= 60 or "some" >= 60Rebel wrote:Or in 2022Sven Schüle wrote:No, I didn't. Version 0.4.0 as well as my current development version are still mailbox. Switching to bitboards is still on my todo list, and it will take quite a while until I can start, maybe some months.lauriet wrote:Did you ever compare bitboards verses mailbox in Jumbo ?
What was the verdict ?