Each element in the countermove table is a history table in this version.
Dividing history after each move also worked:http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 10&t=63870
But most changes were bugfixes in search and eval (e.g. eval is color symmetric now)
New strength should be above 2100 CCRL.
Galjoen 0.36
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:57 am
- Location: Belgium
- Full name: Werner Taelemans
-
- Posts: 41455
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:52 am
- Location: Auckland, NZ
-
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:57 am
- Location: Belgium
- Full name: Werner Taelemans
Re: Galjoen 0.36
If you download the source, you will also find the map bin.
This map contains a 32-bit and 64-bit exe.
This map contains a 32-bit and 64-bit exe.
-
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:57 am
- Location: Belgium
- Full name: Werner Taelemans
Re: Galjoen 0.36
Galjoen started as a CECP engine. Later I switched to UCI but kept support for CECP.
Today Galjoen is a UCI engine with an extra layer that takes care of the translation between CECP and UCI.
This extra translation seems to hurt more than I expected (especially at short time controls),
and a 13% difference is obviously unacceptable.
The easiest solution, for me of course, is to throw away support for CECP.
I could also try to optimize all this, but I'm afraid that for very short time controls there would still be a difference in strength.
My question: is there in fact interest or demand for engines that support both protocols?
Today Galjoen is a UCI engine with an extra layer that takes care of the translation between CECP and UCI.
This extra translation seems to hurt more than I expected (especially at short time controls),
and a 13% difference is obviously unacceptable.
The easiest solution, for me of course, is to throw away support for CECP.
I could also try to optimize all this, but I'm afraid that for very short time controls there would still be a difference in strength.
My question: is there in fact interest or demand for engines that support both protocols?
-
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:57 am
- Location: Belgium
- Full name: Werner Taelemans
Re: Galjoen 0.36
Thanks for testing this. I put this on my to do list for version 0.37, because it's too complicated to do with a small patch now.SzG wrote:When an engine supports both protocols I use it as a WB engine under Arena for the very reason to detect implementation flaws. That's why I started my tournament with Galjoen WB.