Independent Computer Chess Discussion Forum
https://open-chess.org/
Will we finally be seeing a Linux binary?
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... #pid390932<1% probability, but I hope you'll be able to use Wine/MicroWine again.
Vas
Vas is more than capable. I understand the Linux market (Desktop) is quite small, but still...and besides, all the cool authors are doing it.Uly wrote:Switch to Windows, it doesn't have that problem.
Uly wrote:So this is the comparison?
Linux: Can't run Windows programs natively and Wine slows down the chess engines.
Windows: Can't tell the difference between A and a.
Oh yeah, I know which one to choose
I can confirm - applications that don't depend much on win32 api in time-critical stuff do perform rather well under wine. The windows build (MSVC + PGO) of Critter runs cca 2-3% faster under wine than the native GCC compile (Ubuntu/linaro + gcc 4.6.1). Intel compiler tops all of them by a small margin, but I am reluctant to use it as it may "unintentionally" generate code that performs sub-optimal on AMD cpus.hyatt wrote:Uly wrote:So this is the comparison?
Linux: Can't run Windows programs natively and Wine slows down the chess engines.
Windows: Can't tell the difference between A and a.
Oh yeah, I know which one to choose
Wine doesn't "slow down the chess engines" at all. It is completely "uninvolved" until the engine wants to do I/O or graphics.
I am not sure where this particular "urban legend" comes from. I have run some very cpu-intensive things on wine with no issues at all, and no decrease in performance when compared to re-booting (on a dual-boot box) and running natively under windows...
OTOH.. I must say that I do some ugly stuff just to make MSVC happy. Guess you need to be 'gentle' with your favorite girl^h^h^h^h compiler...Richard Vida wrote:I can confirm - applications that don't depend much on win32 api in time-critical stuff do perform rather well under wine. The windows build (MSVC + PGO) of Critter runs cca 2-3% faster under wine than the native GCC compile (Ubuntu/linaro + gcc 4.6.1). Intel compiler tops all of them by a small margin, but I am reluctant to use it as it may "unintentionally" generate code that performs sub-optimal on AMD cpus.hyatt wrote:Uly wrote:So this is the comparison?
Linux: Can't run Windows programs natively and Wine slows down the chess engines.
Windows: Can't tell the difference between A and a.
Oh yeah, I know which one to choose
Wine doesn't "slow down the chess engines" at all. It is completely "uninvolved" until the engine wants to do I/O or graphics.
I am not sure where this particular "urban legend" comes from. I have run some very cpu-intensive things on wine with no issues at all, and no decrease in performance when compared to re-booting (on a dual-boot box) and running natively under windows...
Code: Select all
if (*board->queen_list<wtm>() != -1) {
lp = board->queen_list<wtm>();
do {
from = Square(*lp);
to_bb = attack_map[from] & target;
serialize_captures(Queen(wtm));
lp++;
} while (*lp != -1);
}
Code: Select all
lp = board->queen_list<wtm>();
while (*lp != -1) {
from = Square(*lp);
to_bb = attack_map[from] & target;
serialize_captures(Queen(wtm));
lp++;
};
Code: Select all
time: 59986 nodes: 335399440 evals: 252662019 knps: 5591
phash: 80.79% evalcache: 10.78% lazy: 38.04% eg_recog: 0
splits: 28627Code: Select all
time: 59986 nodes: 309578917 evals: 233593356 knps: 5160
phash: 81.29% evalcache: 10.49% lazy: 37.74% eg_recog: 0
splits: 25870Code: Select all
time: 99986 nodes: 559984269 evals: 413473219 knps: 5600
phash: 80.95% evalcache: 11.49% lazy: 37.44% eg_recog: 2
splits: 50156Code: Select all
time: 99986 nodes: 518032761 evals: 380642623 knps: 5181
phash: 80.75% evalcache: 11.45% lazy: 36.83% eg_recog: 0
splits: 43407Code: Select all
time: 199986 nodes: 1154964601 evals: 852760483 knps: 5775
phash: 81.35% evalcache: 11.33% lazy: 39.14% eg_recog: 2
splits: 66990Code: Select all
time: 199986 nodes: 1064932281 evals: 790297153 knps: 5325
phash: 82.23% evalcache: 11.35% lazy: 38.83% eg_recog: 1
splits: 75969
Thanks for benchmarking. I know it sounds like heresy, but 1.4 had never seen any Linux on my computer. It was compiled/tested with VirtualBox on a Win64 host, so I had no idea what about its performance in native Linux. However, 1.2 was compiled/tested with genuine Linux and was indeed a bit slower than the Windows build on the same computer.kingliveson wrote:Here are some quick benchmarks for Critter 1.4 Linux/Native and Windows/Wine:
<snip>
If R5 does not run on Linux it is already obsoletekingliveson wrote: It is interesting however that Bob is advocating I buy Rybka 5.
