geots wrote:But instead just run the exes and in console mode type in "go depth 22" and it will run thru 22 depths.
That's an UCI command, so you'll either need to pass uci as argument to the executable or instead send uci as first line before you can issue further UCI commands.
Reason is that Octochess defaults to CECP unless instructed otherwise.
geots wrote:But instead just run the exes and in console mode type in "go depth 22" and it will run thru 22 depths.
That's an UCI command, so you'll either need to pass uci as argument to the executable or instead send uci as first line before you can issue further UCI commands.
Reason is that Octochess defaults to CECP unless instructed otherwise.
Thank you for that info, Tim. And good luck with your engine.
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.
First, how did this version start off as 4529 and end up as 4558 after a few threads?
2nd, I doubt I will be running 32bit- but you never know with me. Anyway, I see his mention of 1GB transposition tables. I of course don't follow the reasoning of this. I really would like to run this engine- but I would never use a 1GB table just on principle.
But I think I am reading that is not an issue with 64bit. However, on Tim's site under requirements it says it needs one-third of my ram memory. Before I attempt to load the 64bit, could either Tim or Jim explain what the engine is going to do with 3GB of my RAM memory.
geots wrote:First, how did this version start off as 4529 and end up as 4558 after a few threads?
Looks like Jim built a development version straight out of Octochess' source repository. As it's not an officially released version, beware of bugs as I haven't done any QA on that particular revision.
I really would like to run this engine- but I would never use a 1GB table just on principle.
You can use the --hash argument to specify a different hash table size. Acceptable values are power of two and in megabytes.
geots wrote:First, how did this version start off as 4529 and end up as 4558 after a few threads?
Looks like Jim built a development version straight out of Octochess' source repository. As it's not an officially released version, beware of bugs as I haven't done any QA on that particular revision.
I really would like to run this engine- but I would never use a 1GB table just on principle.
You can use the --hash argument to specify a different hash table size. Acceptable values are power of two and in megabytes.
...can you please give an example how this works in Arena??
I can't, I'm not familiar with Arena.
... and why does the engine sometimes in an endgame use more than 1CPU? I sometimes saw 100 % cpu usage on my quad here??
Octochess is multi-threaded. First root node is searched single-threaded, the other root nodes are searched in parallel. You can control the number of search threads with the --threads argument.
...can you please give an example how this works in Arena??
I can't, I'm not familiar with Arena.
... and why does the engine sometimes in an endgame use more than 1CPU? I sometimes saw 100 % cpu usage on my quad here??
Octochess is multi-threaded. First root node is searched single-threaded, the other root nodes are searched in parallel. You can control the number of search threads with the --threads argument.