zct-list Mailing List for ZCT
Status: Beta
Brought to you by:
zwegner
Menu
▾
▴
zct-list — General discussion for ZCT. Release announcements, developer talk, bugs, etc.
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2008 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(9) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(2) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2011 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Aart B. <aj...@go...> - 2011-01-05 05:05:58
|
Folks, I compiled the latest ZCT (extended with movetime) for Android and, with Zach's kind permission, put the binary at my UCI engines for Android website (http://www.aartbik.com/MISC/eng.html). The binary can be imported in Chess for Android, available for free at the Android market. Below is a cross table of a quick tournament between a few engines on Android. Sincerely, Aart Chess for Android Match 2011 1 2 3 1 GNU Chess 5.07.153.3b-32 ********** 1111111111 1111111111 20.0/20 2 ZCT-0.3.2500 0000000000 ********** 110½110½½0 5.5/20 3 BikJump v2.1P (32-bit) 0000000000 001½001½½1 ********** 4.5/20 |
|
From: Zach W. <zw...@gm...> - 2009-08-25 22:13:29
|
Hello Yves, Thanks for the interest! Building ZCT is pretty simple, since it's primarily unix-based. Most likely you should be able to compile it just by typing "make" on the command line, or "make release" for a slightly faster version. Depending on your processor, you might need to adjust some of the definitions in zct.h, but for recent intel-based 64-bit macs, this should work fine. Let me know if you have any more questions! regards, Zach |
|
From: Yves C. <yca...@gm...> - 2009-08-25 18:28:36
|
Hello, just ot understand, i arrive t compile some c program with gcc with online command. but with zct it is not the case. I have some errors like the compiler don't find some file in the same folder of the main. For example macbook-pro-15-de-yves:src Yves$ gcc zct.c In file included from zct.c:20: zct.h:156: error: expected ‘=’, ‘,’, ‘;’, ‘asm’ or ‘__attribute__’ before ‘BITBOARD’ zct.h:215: error: expected ‘=’, ‘,’, ‘;’, ‘asm’ or ‘__attribute__’ before ‘HASHKEY’ zct.h:249: error: expected specifier-qualifier-list before ‘HASHKEY’ zct.h:268: error: expected specifier-qualifier-list before ‘BITBOARD’ zct.h:301: error: expected specifier-qualifier-list before ‘BITBOARD’ zct.h:327: error: expected specifier-qualifier-list before ‘HASHKEY’ zct.h:338: error: expected specifier-qualifier-list before ‘HASHKEY’ zct.h:358: error: expected specifier-qualifier-list before ‘HASHKEY’ zct.h:369: error: expected specifier-qualifier-list before ‘BITBOARD’ zct.h:463: error: expected specifier-qualifier-list before ‘BITBOARD’ In file included from zct.c:21: functions.h:26: error: expected ‘=’, ‘,’, ‘;’, ‘asm’ or ‘__attribute__’ before ‘attacks_bb’ functions.h:27: error: expected ‘=’, ‘,’, ‘;’, ‘asm’ or ‘__attribute__’ before ‘fill_up_right’ functions.h:28: error: expected ‘=’, ‘,’, ‘;’, ‘asm’ or ‘__attribute__’ before ‘fill_up’ functions.h:29: error: expected ‘=’, ‘,’, ‘;’, ‘asm’ or ‘__attribute__’ before ‘fill_up_left’ functions.h:30: error: expected ‘=’, ‘,’, ‘;’, ‘asm’ or ‘__attribute__’ before ‘fill_right’ functions.h:31: error: expected ‘=’, ‘,’, ‘;’, ‘asm’ or ‘__attribute__’ before ‘fill_left’ functions.h:32: error: expected ‘=’, ‘,’, ‘;’, ‘asm’ or ‘__attribute__’ before ‘fill_down_right’ functions.h:33: error: expected ‘=’, ‘,’, ‘;’, ‘asm’ or ‘__attribute__’ before ‘fill_down’ functions.h:34: error: expected ‘=’, ‘,’, ‘;’, ‘asm’ or ‘__attribute__’ before ‘fill_down_left’ functions.h:35: error: expected ‘=’, ‘,’, ‘;’, ‘asm’ or ‘__attribute__’ before ‘smear_up’ functions.h:36: error: expected ‘=’, ‘,’, ‘;’, ‘asm’ or ‘__attribute__’ before ‘smear_down’ functions.h:37: error: expected ‘=’, ‘,’, ‘;’, ‘asm’ or ‘__attribute__’ before ‘fill_attacks_knight’ functions.h:38: error: expected ‘=’, ‘,’, ‘;’, ‘asm’ or ‘__attribute__’ before ‘fill_attacks_bishop’ functions.h:39: error: expected ‘=’, ‘,’, ‘;’, ‘asm’ or ‘__attribute__’ before ‘fill_attacks_rook’ functions.h:40: error: expected ‘=’, ‘,’, ‘;’, ‘asm’ or ‘__attribute__’ before ‘flood_fill_king’ functions.h:41: error: expected ‘)’ before ‘bitboard’ functions.h:42: error: expected ‘)’ before ‘bitboard’ functions.h:44: error: expected ‘)’ before ‘bitboard’ Do you have idea why there are these errors ? Many thanks Best Regards Yves |
|
From: Zach W. <zw...@gm...> - 2008-07-26 17:22:18
|
Oh, and I'd guess the reason is compatibility. Old C code might have something like int inline(void);, where this was legal, as inline wasn't a keyword. C++ had inline as a keyword from the start. All names starting with an underscore are reserved, so there shouldn't be any old code with _inline in it. |
|
From: Zach W. <zw...@gm...> - 2008-07-26 17:20:17
|
Oh, sorry about that. I tried out some new asm bitscans, Bob said that they were really fast (they are). It did compile fine, but I was using Visual C++. ;) I should put a 32/64 bit macro in there too, so it will compile fine either way. So this will only work on x86-64 bit machines. |
|
From: Fonzy t. <fo...@to...> - 2008-07-26 14:39:06
|
Op Sat, 26 Jul 2008 07:51:26 +0200 schreef Zach Wegner <zw...@gm...>: > Hello everyone, > > I just wanted to give a couple of updates about ZCT's SMP support. > First, it seems that the Windows version actually had some weird > problems related to the threads it uses now. It didn't seem to be > using the second processor at all, and it would hang, crash, etc. I > was able to fix it today, so the sources are up on CVS. > > This version is pretty stable on 4 processors on my computer, and the > Windows version seems stable on 2 on my work computer. Note that this > is not the same as having no bugs! The 4 processor version hangs > occasionally, and I'd imagine the 2 processor version might at some > point. I'd guess that the speedup is something like 1.5 on 2 > processors, and anywhere from 1.5 to 2 on 4. So if anyone can run some > stability tests, just running a bunch of games (fast and slow) with > the 2 processor version, it would be appreciated! There is still the > use-up-time-when-idle bug, but I primarily want to test stability > rather than strength, so if it takes up another engines' time, so be > it. > > I also just started a cvs branch that will be the conversion to > threads. Be sure to grab the MAIN branch rather than the new thread > one. I just converted some of functions.h, so I could have a better > idea of what needed to be done. One snag that I see, for print(), > there are some arguments such as moves that depend on the board being > available. So I suppose either print will turn into print(board, > "stuff", ...) or an extra argument of the board will be required > whenever a move is printed. > > I will probably be testing a little more before each release from now > on, both Unix and Windows. :) I also plan on making a regression test > suite at some point... > > Thanks guys, > Zach > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's > challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great > prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the > world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > zct-list mailing list > zct...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/zct-list > can't compile this one,seems MSVC cannot handle asm keyword. also it wants "inline" in c++ code,"_inline" in c code.(now don't ask me why... ) Best Fonzy |
|
From: Zach W. <zw...@gm...> - 2008-07-26 05:51:18
|
Hello everyone, I just wanted to give a couple of updates about ZCT's SMP support. First, it seems that the Windows version actually had some weird problems related to the threads it uses now. It didn't seem to be using the second processor at all, and it would hang, crash, etc. I was able to fix it today, so the sources are up on CVS. This version is pretty stable on 4 processors on my computer, and the Windows version seems stable on 2 on my work computer. Note that this is not the same as having no bugs! The 4 processor version hangs occasionally, and I'd imagine the 2 processor version might at some point. I'd guess that the speedup is something like 1.5 on 2 processors, and anywhere from 1.5 to 2 on 4. So if anyone can run some stability tests, just running a bunch of games (fast and slow) with the 2 processor version, it would be appreciated! There is still the use-up-time-when-idle bug, but I primarily want to test stability rather than strength, so if it takes up another engines' time, so be it. I also just started a cvs branch that will be the conversion to threads. Be sure to grab the MAIN branch rather than the new thread one. I just converted some of functions.h, so I could have a better idea of what needed to be done. One snag that I see, for print(), there are some arguments such as moves that depend on the board being available. So I suppose either print will turn into print(board, "stuff", ...) or an extra argument of the board will be required whenever a move is printed. I will probably be testing a little more before each release from now on, both Unix and Windows. :) I also plan on making a regression test suite at some point... Thanks guys, Zach |
|
From: Aart B. <aj...@go...> - 2008-07-12 19:28:25
|
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Zach Wegner <zw...@gm...> wrote: > Hi Aart,But in any case, thanks for the suggestion. I will add a SMP field, > maybe with the number of active processors. The 32/64 issue is a > little more complicated, there's no way to detect that > programmatically, at least without messing with the preprocessor. > That's probably best for just manual source editing (Jim, are you > listening? :) ). Well, supposedly you compile 32/64-bit and non-SMP/SMP with different compiler switches which you could process with #ifdef's to construct the proper engine ID. But even without going that route, simply using sizeof(void *) * 8 somewhere will tell you the difference between 32-bit and 64-bit statically, i.e. no run-time checks required :-) |
|
From: Zach W. <zw...@gm...> - 2008-07-12 19:19:23
|
Hi Aart, Thanks for downloading. There are still some kinks to work out in the mailing list. It seems the [zct-list] prefix isn't being applied to the subject. I also changed the options to "munge" the reply-to, so that replies are automatically sent to the list. It's "strongly recommended" not to, but I think it's annoying having to manually change the to address, and I think that suggestion is rather outdated anyway. But in any case, thanks for the suggestion. I will add a SMP field, maybe with the number of active processors. The 32/64 issue is a little more complicated, there's no way to detect that programmatically, at least without messing with the preprocessor. That's probably best for just manual source editing (Jim, are you listening? :) ). |
|
From: Zach W. <zw...@gm...> - 2008-07-12 18:49:37
|
I see a few of you signed up already, so I'm testing out the new list. A new version of ZCT was just released: https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=226014 Thanks, Zach |
|
From: Zach W. <zw...@gm...> - 2008-07-11 21:22:08
|
Hello! |
|
From: Zach W. <zw...@gm...> - 2008-07-11 21:17:47
|
Hello everyone (nobody)!! |
