Mark 32-bit engines as 32-bit, and remove "64-bit" from the name of 64-bit engines.
I compiled some stats on it when discussing this with Terje a few weeks back, and while a majority of tested engines had a 32-bit version, almost all engines in the top 100, along with all new engines entering the rating list, are 64-bits. For most users, this change would reduce clutter when looking at the list.
Suggestion to CCRL
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
Gabor Szots
- Posts: 1362
- Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2018 7:43 am
- Location: Szentendre, Hungary
- Full name: Gabor Szots
Re: Suggestion to CCRL
Yes it is but at the moment none of us has either the time or the capabilities to change it.
Gabor Szots
CCRL testing group
CCRL testing group
-
Modern Times
- Posts: 3546
- Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:02 pm
Re: Suggestion to CCRL
I've been thinking about this myself for quite a while. It used to be that 32-bit was the norm and 64-bit was the exception. Now it is the other way round. I'd certainly like to see us do this.
The issue is in the custom comparisons, where the absence of the "64-bit" tag in the engine names means they are treated as a 32-bit. Again things have moved on - no-one is interested in custom lists of just 32-bit engines, at least I don't think they are. We'd have to trawl through the Perl scripts and see what we could do. If the option to generate purely 32-bit custom lists was removed then I think things would be OK. Or else we find the code where the distinction is made between 32-bit and 64-bit engines and change that. Either way it requires some detailed investigation and I'll try and find the time to do that. There are close to 10,000 lines of code and comments in the Perl scrips that generate the website. It is highly automated but you need to have some programming knowledge in order to make changes to it.
The issue is in the custom comparisons, where the absence of the "64-bit" tag in the engine names means they are treated as a 32-bit. Again things have moved on - no-one is interested in custom lists of just 32-bit engines, at least I don't think they are. We'd have to trawl through the Perl scripts and see what we could do. If the option to generate purely 32-bit custom lists was removed then I think things would be OK. Or else we find the code where the distinction is made between 32-bit and 64-bit engines and change that. Either way it requires some detailed investigation and I'll try and find the time to do that. There are close to 10,000 lines of code and comments in the Perl scrips that generate the website. It is highly automated but you need to have some programming knowledge in order to make changes to it.
-
Dann Corbit
- Posts: 12540
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
- Location: Redmond, WA USA
Re: Suggestion to CCRL
The problem is that you have to change not only the engine names for the engines, but also the engine names in every single file for every version of the engine that ever existed for every single file.
Otherwise, the Elo calculations will not work.
That is a really big job.
Consider not only all the different time levels, but they also have split-outs for every individual single engine.
And none of us are really confused by it. It would just look a little better.
Otherwise, the Elo calculations will not work.
That is a really big job.
Consider not only all the different time levels, but they also have split-outs for every individual single engine.
And none of us are really confused by it. It would just look a little better.
Taking ideas is not a vice, it is a virtue. We have another word for this. It is called learning.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
-
Modern Times
- Posts: 3546
- Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:02 pm
Re: Suggestion to CCRL
It is a really big job, yes. And for no real benefit.
The source pgns can remain unchanged. The re-naming can be handled in the master engine config file and the mapping file that goes with it, but they are very big files. I'd probably ask a programmer experienced in text manipulation to write a small one-off program for us to flip things around, or perhaps a decent text file editor can do it with some sort of search and replace. Anyway I'd try it manually on the chess960 list first as that is quite small. There is still the issue of the custom lists to investigate though.
The source pgns can remain unchanged. The re-naming can be handled in the master engine config file and the mapping file that goes with it, but they are very big files. I'd probably ask a programmer experienced in text manipulation to write a small one-off program for us to flip things around, or perhaps a decent text file editor can do it with some sort of search and replace. Anyway I'd try it manually on the chess960 list first as that is quite small. There is still the issue of the custom lists to investigate though.
-
Modern Times
- Posts: 3546
- Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:02 pm
Re: Suggestion to CCRL
From a quick look at the code, I believe that we could change to "x64" instead of "64-bit" without any difficulty at all. That is a bit cleaner. Might be something we could do in the interim, worth thinking about also.
-
mvanthoor
- Posts: 1784
- Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2019 4:42 pm
- Location: Netherlands
- Full name: Marcel Vanthoor
Re: Suggestion to CCRL
This would be a hack, but here goes.
It seems engine that are 64-bit have "64-bit" in their name, the ones that are 32-bit have either nothing, or 32-bit.
Leave everything as it is.
Then add a Javascript procedure to the top of each page, which would add "32-bit" to any engine that doesn't already have that marking, and then remove "64-bit" from all the engines that are marked 64-bit.
It would basically be a cosmetic fix in the front-end, but you wouldn't have to change anything in the backend of the site.
It seems engine that are 64-bit have "64-bit" in their name, the ones that are 32-bit have either nothing, or 32-bit.
Leave everything as it is.
Then add a Javascript procedure to the top of each page, which would add "32-bit" to any engine that doesn't already have that marking, and then remove "64-bit" from all the engines that are marked 64-bit.
It would basically be a cosmetic fix in the front-end, but you wouldn't have to change anything in the backend of the site.
-
AndrewGrant
- Posts: 1754
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 6:08 am
- Location: U.S.A
- Full name: Andrew Grant
Re: Suggestion to CCRL
+1mvanthoor wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 10:45 pm This would be a hack, but here goes.
It seems engine that are 64-bit have "64-bit" in their name, the ones that are 32-bit have either nothing, or 32-bit.
Leave everything as it is.
Then add a Javascript procedure to the top of each page, which would add "32-bit" to any engine that doesn't already have that marking, and then remove "64-bit" from all the engines that are marked 64-bit.
It would basically be a cosmetic fix in the front-end, but you wouldn't have to change anything in the backend of the site.
#WeAreAllDraude #JusticeForDraude #RememberDraude #LeptirBigUltra
"Those who can't do, clone instead" - Eduard ( A real life friend, not this forum's Eduard )
"Those who can't do, clone instead" - Eduard ( A real life friend, not this forum's Eduard )
-
the_real_greco
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:55 am
- Full name: Andy!
Re: Suggestion to CCRL
This is only tangentially related, but often I refer people to the CCRL (or any other rating list) before they can submit an engine to the CCC. Is there an easy way to apply for inclusion?
I seriously doubt anyone's going to follow through (or that anything submitted that way will be particularly unique), but it would be nice to have some information to give people.
(Also, it turns out that I use the same sentence structure (the one with the parenthetical) over and over.)
I seriously doubt anyone's going to follow through (or that anything submitted that way will be particularly unique), but it would be nice to have some information to give people.
(Also, it turns out that I use the same sentence structure (the one with the parenthetical) over and over.)