Stockfish 2.1
-
noctiferus
- Posts: 122
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 7:57 am
- Location: Ivrea (To), Italy
-
noctiferus
- Posts: 122
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 7:57 am
- Location: Ivrea (To), Italy
Re: Stockfish 2.1
At the same location is now available a faster recompile (stockfish 2.1.1).
PS-Oops: seems to be some trouble in Linux recompile... Wait!
PS-Oops: seems to be some trouble in Linux recompile... Wait!
Re: Stockfish 2.1
I skipped Stockfish 2.0 for these reasons, will wait for stable version 
And, I suspect it'll be as unusable for analysis as 2.0.1 was, so I'll stick with the Gran2k/flfh series for a while
Still, it's great to see improvement, Stockfish has continued to climb my core engines list since version 1.5, I wouldn't be surprised if a future version was my top main engine.
And, I suspect it'll be as unusable for analysis as 2.0.1 was, so I'll stick with the Gran2k/flfh series for a while
Still, it's great to see improvement, Stockfish has continued to climb my core engines list since version 1.5, I wouldn't be surprised if a future version was my top main engine.
-
noctiferus
- Posts: 122
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 7:57 am
- Location: Ivrea (To), Italy
Re: Stockfish 2.1
Hi,Uly.
I'm looking at Martin's tournament. Chessbomb, for evaluating positions, moved to sf.2.1 from 2.0.1variations, based on what was suggested in this forum, and evals seem more stable...
I'm looking at Martin's tournament. Chessbomb, for evaluating positions, moved to sf.2.1 from 2.0.1variations, based on what was suggested in this forum, and evals seem more stable...
-
noctiferus
- Posts: 122
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 7:57 am
- Location: Ivrea (To), Italy
-
noctiferus
- Posts: 122
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 7:57 am
- Location: Ivrea (To), Italy
Re: Stockfish 2.1
Final complete recompile by Jim Ablett, all bugs fixed:
http://www.mediafire.com/?e8op18qiaam76sd
Link to his post:
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... d26be8fd3b
http://www.mediafire.com/?e8op18qiaam76sd
Link to his post:
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... d26be8fd3b
Re: Stockfish 2.1
I do not understand the need for this actually: generic compiled stockfish on both boxes (Intel/AMD in this case) are already faster (than accompanied binary); adding flags '-march=native' or simply '-msse3' and so on give even more convincing results (PGO-compiling with gcc seems intersting too (doesn't matter whether g++ 4.4/4.5/4.6 is used-all deliver fast binaries)).PS-Oops: seems to be some trouble in Linux recompile... Wait!
-
noctiferus
- Posts: 122
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 7:57 am
- Location: Ivrea (To), Italy
Re: Stockfish 2.1
IMO it would better if you could send your comment directly to Jim Ablett on Talkchess...
( sorry for the PM I sent you: mouse slip..)
( sorry for the PM I sent you: mouse slip..)
Re: Stockfish 2.1
ok - I got icc Version 12.0.4 installed and tried various (and default) switches and settings (incl. pgo) on a (mid june 2010) mac mini (wizz se Debian-linux* of course): It's definitely not worth the hassle, as no reliable speedups emerged of its use opposed to gcc.
Removing this (locally installed) intel product therefore.
*unstable/recurrent results
$stockfish bench 32 1 10 default depth
vary from 835 kn/s (stable; ja-64-bit-binary)
to 855 kn/s (stable, gcc), 965 kn/s (unstable, gcc) and 840 kn/s (stable, icc, pgo), resp. 930 kn/s(unstable->740kn/s also occurs, icc '-axSSE3')
Removing this (locally installed) intel product therefore.
*unstable/recurrent results
$stockfish bench 32 1 10 default depth
vary from 835 kn/s (stable; ja-64-bit-binary)
to 855 kn/s (stable, gcc), 965 kn/s (unstable, gcc) and 840 kn/s (stable, icc, pgo), resp. 930 kn/s(unstable->740kn/s also occurs, icc '-axSSE3')