Impressive and hard work!
Thanks to all ...
but making a guess i would say ±60 elo :)
was not far off ! ;)
ELO: 54.21 +-1.9
Too bad I couldn't figure out what to do with analysis contempt. Warning to everybody upgrading from SF 9; SF 10 has a default contempt of 24 centipawns even in analysis mode, and it works by adjusting the score of side-to-move-at-root (not adjusting the score of a draw).
This is a new paradigm for chess analysis ("new" since analysis Contempt was raised for Stockfish) and lazy people just setting C=0 and using the old paradigm are missing out.
I suppose my pushback would be that adding +0.24 automatically (which is what SF basically does with contempt, right?) doesn't achieve your goals at all. The ending K + B vs K doesn't give any more winning chances by adding +0.24 to it.
But maybe the SF contempt is more complex than I have described it? Do they have some sort of statistical measure now?
> Contempt in general is a bit more complex. Even with contempt on an inevitable draw gives a 0.0 eval. But to be honest I can't imagine any benefit of contempt in analysis. I think it should be off by default.
I'm not sure how easy this is to do. As I understand it SF 10 has two contempts. One is controllable via UCI options and can be switched off (static) but the other is a dynamic contempt which cannot be.
I haven't tested this properly yet, but some are saying to truly disable contempt the source code would need to be edited.
I for one use default contempt for my analysis, and did exactly that i.e. changed my mindset accordingly.
How would you think leaving C24 affect IDEA analysis?
> My MMAP_RANDOM patch made it in, just in time :-)
Do you happen to know the windows implementation for the same behavior?
>My MMAP_RANDOM patch made it in, just in time :-)
Can you explain roughly what this does? Just curious.
>Too bad I couldn't figure out what to do with analysis contempt. Warning to everybody upgrading from SF 9; SF 10 has a default contempt of 24 centipawns even in analysis mode, and it works by adjusting the score of side-to-move-at-root (not adjusting the score of a draw).
I thought SF9 had something similar, it's one of the reasons why I switched to SugaR for analysis.
> Can you explain roughly what this does? Just curious.
When Stockfish needs to read a Syzygy block from disk (typically 32 bytes plus some seeking, occasionally 64), the default behavior is that the OS reads that block plus ~256 kB around it, since it thinks you're going to need nearby data soon anyway. That's obviously meaningless since tablebases have zero locality, so MADV_RANDOM reduces it to the minimum possible, which is 4 kB. For an SSD, this means a world of difference, since the primary cost is not the number of I/O requests, but the amount of blocks read. (For a spinning drive, it doesn't matter that much. Also, of course, if you have enough RAM to hold the entire tablebase, the readahead could be useful, but then you should probably just preload the entire tablebase sequentially into RAM anyway.)
There are heuristics in place that should have kept this 256 kB scenario from occurring, but evidently, the access patterns of the TBs would seem to fool those heuristics. Thus, the explicit hint.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill