New engine release: Jumbo

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Harvey Williamson, bob

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
Sven
Posts: 3626
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany
Full name: Sven Schüle
Contact:

Re: New engine release: Jumbo

Post by Sven » Mon Sep 19, 2016 7:54 pm

Graham Banks wrote:A successor to Surprise. :)
Yes, but also to KnockOut.
Surprise was released in 2004, KnockOut in 2010, Jumbo in 2016.

mar
Posts: 1845
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 1:00 pm

Re: New engine release: Jumbo

Post by mar » Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:49 pm

Sven Schüle wrote: Yes, but also to KnockOut.
Surprise was released in 2004, KnockOut in 2010, Jumbo in 2016.
I sense a pattern :)
Congratulations

Adam Hair
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 8:31 pm
Location: Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina

Re: New engine release: Jumbo

Post by Adam Hair » Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:57 pm

Did you write the code from scratch or did you copy from an established engine such as Moron? I seem to recall some dispute between you and Fern about code similarities :?

Seriously, your announcement has caused me for the first time in a awhile to wish that I had an active computer. I would love to run some matches with Jumbo. I am glad to see that you are still active, Sven.

Sven
Posts: 3626
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany
Full name: Sven Schüle
Contact:

Re: New engine release: Jumbo

Post by Sven » Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:40 pm

mar wrote:
Sven Schüle wrote: Yes, but also to KnockOut.
Surprise was released in 2004, KnockOut in 2010, Jumbo in 2016.
I sense a pattern :)
Congratulations

Code: Select all

By year:

2016                       xx
2014                    ..
2012                 ..
2010              xx
2008          ..
2006       ..
2004    xx

     Surprise  KnockOut  Jumbo


By target elo:

3000                       xx
2700                    ..
2400                  ..
2100              xx
1800    xx

     Surprise  KnockOut  Jumbo
:D

Sven
Posts: 3626
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany
Full name: Sven Schüle
Contact:

Re: New engine release: Jumbo

Post by Sven » Sat Sep 24, 2016 9:09 pm

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.
Hi Gabor,

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?

User avatar
Guenther
Posts: 2361
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:33 am
Location: Regensburg, Germany
Full name: Guenther Simon
Contact:

Re: New engine release: Jumbo

Post by Guenther » Sun Sep 25, 2016 7:46 am

SzG wrote:
Sven Schüle wrote:
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.
Hi Gabor,

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?
Hi Sven,

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.
Is that mixed time control really supported by xboard programs?

ZirconiumX
Posts: 1327
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 9:14 am

Re: New engine release: Jumbo

Post by ZirconiumX » Sun Sep 25, 2016 8:33 am

SzG wrote:
Guenther wrote:
Is that mixed time control really supported by xboard programs?
Although I have seen exceptions, in general: yes.
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.
Some believe in the almighty dollar.

I believe in the almighty printf statement.

User avatar
Guenther
Posts: 2361
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:33 am
Location: Regensburg, Germany
Full name: Guenther Simon
Contact:

Re: New engine release: Jumbo

Post by Guenther » Sun Sep 25, 2016 9:07 am

ZirconiumX wrote:
SzG wrote:
Guenther wrote:
Is that mixed time control really supported by xboard programs?
Although I have seen exceptions, in general: yes.
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.
I guess we have a missunderstanding. I thought Gabor means 40/1m +50s inc.

ZirconiumX
Posts: 1327
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 9:14 am

Re: New engine release: Jumbo

Post by ZirconiumX » Sun Sep 25, 2016 9:17 am

Guenther wrote:
ZirconiumX wrote:
SzG wrote:
Guenther wrote:
Is that mixed time control really supported by xboard programs?
Although I have seen exceptions, in general: yes.
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.
I guess we have a missunderstanding. I thought Gabor means 40/1m +50s inc.
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.
Some believe in the almighty dollar.

I believe in the almighty printf statement.

User avatar
Guenther
Posts: 2361
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:33 am
Location: Regensburg, Germany
Full name: Guenther Simon
Contact:

Re: New engine release: Jumbo

Post by Guenther » Sun Sep 25, 2016 9:26 am

ZirconiumX wrote:
Guenther wrote:
ZirconiumX wrote:
SzG wrote:
Guenther wrote:
Is that mixed time control really supported by xboard programs?
Although I have seen exceptions, in general: yes.
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.
I guess we have a missunderstanding. I thought Gabor means 40/1m +50s inc.
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".
AFAIK it is supported since not too long ago, but a lot of programs might choke on this.
ZirconiumX wrote:But I don't see why you'd ever want to do that.
Well people do a lot of weird things ;-)

Post Reply