Is it stronger than Stockfish, Komodo?
It appears to be stronger than Stockfish 8
Stockfish 8 is a Relic and completely unimportant.
Performance against latest Stockfish Development Version is what counts.
CumnorChessClub(Kevin D Plant) was in fact correct in his post
SF has flat-lined in their progressed. I had to find that out for myself.
> I downloaded Something that claimed to be asmfishW. But there is no version notation connected with it?
The Windows asmFishW Engines can be downloaded from here ...
The 2017-05-22 engine has performed best in my tests up to last release.
> H6 is losing to latest SF dev/asmFish at some time controls on some hardware
May be worth checking out the balance of openings too. Stockfish engines generally get better results with certain King's pawn openings, particularly the Sicilian and Spanish from my opening set but Houdini performs better in non King's Pawn openings. I am finding the same with Houdini 6.01 Pro in current Gauntlet when Stockfish 8 is giving it a tough time but in contrast the performance against Komodo has been eye opening so far.
Another adverse influence will be making the same mistake as I did by having 6 man Nalimov available and only 5 man Syzygy. Despite the "6" engine issue with Nalimov being corrected in "6.01", the slow down in "6.01" when Nalimov are accessed in the absence of appropriate Syzygy bases can be quite dramatic. Worst so far noted using six cores per engine was a drop from 13,500 kN/s to as low as 55 kN/s and plydepth 15 ply lower. That will not be seen in the standard engine because it will not use Nalimov. The problem is the Chessbase GUI sends the engine Nalimov paths despite being cleared from the GUI entry. A work around is to use empty dummy paths that overwrite the originals and that works but too late to implement in current Gauntlet.
I'm only playing a 25 minute games. I'm not going to tie up my computer for a great length of time.
I'm trying for experimental purposes a French Defense Power book. I'll try an number of exclusive opening books about 25 games each. See what happens.
Hyper threading off.
Turbo is off.
32 GB ram
The 12th game doesn't appear to be looking like a possible drawn game so I'll let play out.
Addendum: I attribute the mild temps to a really great water cooling block from EK-Supremacy EVO Elite Edition - Intel 2011-3! Excellent!
Sedat's was automatic cutoff. I think if I overclocked I could easily get 22-23000 kN/s.
Just dubble click asmFish and type bench 1024 16 26 (enter) you just change 16 as your cores/threads you want to use!
Addendum: I noted that Robert Houdart used hyper threading in his analysis of a position. Given his high end hardware not too much is going to be missed in search - hyper threading , I would imagine cuts down his search time?! "
Dual Xeon E5-2698v4 @ 2.3 GHz, 80 threads, 32768 MB of Large Page hash, 6-men Syzygy.
74 MN/s on a board full of pieces, after 20 hours about 5.4 trillion nodes.
This is just a question. I'm not sure one could miss anything of significance running at this level of search this fast- it's mind boggling at 5.4 Trillion nodes!
>Okay! I want your take on this. We keep coming back to this issue time and time again! The use of Intel® Hyper-Threading Technology in computer chess -whether in engine vs engines matches or in analysis -does hyper threading help or hinder?
With asmFish I get around the 30,000 kN/s mark using a dual Xeon E5-2687W 2 x 8 cores with HT switched off.
When I looked into the "HT On or Off" debate after purchasing the machine I ran some position solving tests. It was my view that the best measure was "time to solve" as the reference measured variable and not kN/s that is really something of a nothing measurement given historic engine misreporting. However a single "time to solve" measurement for comparison when threads > 1 is insufficient because of the inherent variability of muli-threaded operation. Each measurement will give a different time. Therefore I decided to run each position 100 times and average the time out.
With the engines available at the time the results were inconclusive. i.e. there seemed no significant benefit because there was little if any measured improvement from the extra logical cores of hyper threading. However there was noticeable extra heat being generated by the machine confiming higher power usage for no benefit.
I actually revisited this a few weeks ago to look at the asmFish engine multithread efficiency and was quite shocked to find on my quad, when testing performance using the T2830 position 15, bm Kg3 compared to the single thread 55s solve time, using 4 cores the averaged out solving performance was worse than the single thread performance. It suggested something else was happening that could not be measured by previous tests. The development Stockfish code date stamp equivalent was tested with the same result.
Given slightly less than a minute solving time for single thread I thought an 8 minute cut off solving time would capture the high variability times using 4 cores. It was insufficient! In the first 40 tests the engine failed to solve 28 times in 8 minutes what the engine solved with a single core. This meant the MP perfromance was much worse than single core. I have not got back to this to try and understand what is going on with my attention now diverted with the flurry of updated engines.
Therefore based on my earlier tests I was unable to find any convincing evidence there is much, if anything to be gained from running with HT on. Others with later hardware may be able to show otherwise.
- 12 threads vs 24 hyper-threads on 12 cores (Xeon)
- 20 threads vs 40 hyper-threads on 20 cores (Xeon)
- 40 threads vs 80 hyper-threads on 40 cores (dual Xeon)
In all 3 tests the hyper-threading adds about 10 Elo in strength.
The results are documented somewhere in this Talkchess thread: http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=65007
Note that this is a relatively poor gain for a 30% node speed increase, doubling the number of threads generates some inefficiency (about 15%).
Some people in the Talkchess thread were claiming that there would be no advantage in using higher number of threads (a claim based on "Amdahl's law").
My results show that this is incorrect, and that there is benefit in using more threads, at least up to 80 threads with Houdini 6.
The level of inefficiency may be either the same percentile you cited?! It is hard to say without testing. Overclocking on low end may be the only way to go assuming one has a reasonably good setup and keeps within safe overclocking cpu limits. I've pushed two units for 5 yrs to their limit and black screened them. I'm retired now and am not so hard on things as I used to be.
From my understanding hyperthreading has improved with recent Intel architectures. I wouldn't feel comfortable using hyperthreading on say Peter's hardware because it is Sandy Bridge. But with say Haswell or Broadwell then why not? 30 percent increase in nodes will give you something at least.
I don't mind doing some testing using hyperthreading. I might play with the over clocking. I get excellent temps on the Broadwell. Where as the Haswell chips get extremely hot fast and are hard to cool. The Sandy bridge weren't too bad.
Hyper-threading results will be similar to my hardware, you gain about 30% in total node speed but half of the gain is wasted because of the increased thread number.
There used to be a relatively easy to use tool (similar.exe I think) for those similarity comparisons...
The U.S currently has a president that thrives on fake news.
Every prof will ask "where is your data?!"
> Houdini 6 is 99% Sf
When it is you making the accusation -it isn't going to be Robert Houdart that has to prove anything, one way or the other, that he's done anything wrong it is going to be incumbent upon you to do the work.
You are going to have to come up with undisputable evidential documentation.
I've felt that one or two other developers have cheated along the way-no doubt about.
One I've even gone to bat for-if only because I thought the way the programmers in the programming community went after him was without moral principles.
In fact, most were probably guilty of the same charge they were accusing Vasik Rajlich of , but, yeah, sure, more than likely to some lesser degree. But, the fear of being found out! They wanted to bury Vasik Rajlich as quickly as possible -even if it meant burying him " theoretically " alive - and so they did.
This is an impure game with a hell of a lot of politics involved -there is nothing new about that. Surprise! Surprise!
> When it is you making the accusation -it isn't going to be Robert Houdart that has to prove anything, one way or the other, that he's done anything wrong it is going to be incumbent upon you to do the work.
I like this
I am using Rybka chess program, Houdini 6.02 engine, and have my own Opening Book for White in a pgn file and for Black in pgn file.
Can someone please help me customise the existing opening book (Rybka or Houdini Book) by merging my pgn files and going forward also to keep adding moves to the opening Books
Or is there a Graphical interface that does just that, saves moves to the opening book?
I am pretty sure any GM would love such an interface for their opening preparation rather than investing in chess programs and engines.
Thanks in advance!
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill