Example Chezzz cfg file

[David Rasmussen]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: David Rasmussen at 14 February 2003 13:02:05:

I've added an example chezzz.cfg in my downloads area:
http://chezzz.elektronhjerne.dk/downloads/chezzz.cfg
/David

[Matthias Gemuh]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Matthias Gemuh at 14 February 2003 13:43:42:
Als Antwort auf: / In reply to: Example Chezzz cfg file geschrieben von: / posted by: David Rasmussen at 14 February 2003 13:02:05:

I've added an example chezzz.cfg in my downloads area:
http://chezzz.elektronhjerne.dk/downloads/chezzz.cfg
/David

Use default values that won't kill the computer of "the normal user".
288 MB means you expect user's RAM to exceed 576 MB (2x288). Unrealistic !
Total hash = 32 MB is the norm.
Regards,
Matthias.

[Gábor Szõts]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Gábor Szõts at 14 February 2003 14:03:13:
Als Antwort auf: / In reply to: default hash size = 288 MB ? geschrieben von: / posted by: Matthias Gemuh at 14 February 2003 13:43:42:

I've added an example chezzz.cfg in my downloads area:
http://chezzz.elektronhjerne.dk/downloads/chezzz.cfg
/David

Use default values that won't kill the computer of "the normal user".
288 MB means you expect user's RAM to exceed 576 MB (2x288). Unrealistic !
Total hash = 32 MB is the norm.
Regards,
Matthias.

Hi Matthias,
This is an example file, the values in it are not default values. Default (if there is no cfg file) is 8 MB and 4 MB respectively for the two hash tables.
Best regards,
Gábor

[David Rasmussen]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: David Rasmussen at 14 February 2003 14:11:24:
Als Antwort auf: / In reply to: default hash size = 288 MB ? geschrieben von: / posted by: Matthias Gemuh at 14 February 2003 13:43:42:

I've added an example chezzz.cfg in my downloads area:
http://chezzz.elektronhjerne.dk/downloads/chezzz.cfg
/David

Use default values that won't kill the computer of "the normal user".
288 MB means you expect user's RAM to exceed 576 MB (2x288). Unrealistic !
Total hash = 32 MB is the norm.

These are not default values, this is an example file.
First of all, I wrote 256M, not 288. Secondly, the number given is _total_. That is, the engine will decide how to use this RAM for the transposition table. So the 256M is total.
Thirdly, whether it's unrealistic or not, I don't know. I have 768 MB RAM myself. And again, it's an example file.
Whose norm?
/David

[Roger Brown]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Roger Brown at 14 February 2003 15:12:44:
Als Antwort auf: / In reply to: Re: default hash size = 288 MB ? geschrieben von: / posted by: David Rasmussen at 14 February 2003 14:11:24:


Hello David,

At least your engine - and its configuration - is generating lots of comment!

I know other authors who wish they had some feedback, any feedback.

It can be a tough crowd here but they are generally good at heart.

Be happy, at this rate you will be able to release a much stronger engine
once the inevitable bug reports pour in.


The 32 MB norm is really an accepted tradition following from well established
sources such as Leo's detail pages. Several persons use that setting as a
reasonable setting given the typical user's ram capacity - around 128 to 256.

More hash size is better - to a certain diminishing limit - but 32 MB gets the
job done for most WB engines.

It is hardly a law....

I was having problems running tournaments on my 128 box before Dann Corbit
made the painfully obvious suggestion to upgrade my memory. Now I have over
300 Mb of ram and I regularly have hash sizes of over 50 MB for engines!

Restrain your sense of wonder, please.

One small step.......

Your 700+ monster may very well be the norm now I suppose but I assure you,
it is way outside the reach of the typical user on this forum.

It is an example file and really, I am lazy but all I need is a
config file and I will do the tinkering. Set it to 500 MB if you like. I
will pare it down to a size that makes sense for my equipment.

Thanks for Chezzz.

Later.

[David Rasmussen]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: David Rasmussen at 14 February 2003 15:22:50:
Als Antwort auf: / In reply to: Re: default hash size = 288 MB ? geschrieben von: / posted by: Roger Brown at 14 February 2003 15:12:44:

Hello David,

At least your engine - and its configuration - is generating lots of comment!

I know other authors who wish they had some feedback, any feedback.

It can be a tough crowd here but they are generally good at heart.

Be happy, at this rate you will be able to release a much stronger engine
once the inevitable bug reports pour in.


The 32 MB norm is really an accepted tradition following from well established
sources such as Leo's detail pages. Several persons use that setting as a
reasonable setting given the typical user's ram capacity - around 128 to 256.

More hash size is better - to a certain diminishing limit - but 32 MB gets the
job done for most WB engines.


Your 700+ monster may very well be the norm now I suppose but I assure you,
it is way outside the reach of the typical user on this forum.

It is an example file and really, I am lazy but all I need is a
config file and I will do the tinkering. Set it to 500 MB if you like. I
will pare it down to a size that makes sense for my equipment.

Thanks for Chezzz.

Yeah
I am happy about the feedback. Any feedback that will help me make a better engine is appreciated.
I can't wait
I can change the example file to have 32M for hash and 4M for pawn hash, I don't care... it is an example
You don't have to assure me, I knew that already
Thanks for your comments.
/David

[Matthias Gemuh]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Matthias Gemuh at 14 February 2003 16:46:12:
Als Antwort auf: / In reply to: Re: default hash size = 288 MB ? geschrieben von: / posted by: Gábor Szõts at 14 February 2003 14:03:13:

I've added an example chezzz.cfg in my downloads area:
http://chezzz.elektronhjerne.dk/downloads/chezzz.cfg
/David

Use default values that won't kill the computer of "the normal user".
288 MB means you expect user's RAM to exceed 576 MB (2x288). Unrealistic !
Total hash = 32 MB is the norm.
Regards,
Matthias.

Hi Matthias,
This is an example file, the values in it are not default values. Default (if there is no cfg file) is 8 MB and 4 MB respectively for the two hash tables.
Best regards,
Gábor

Hi Gabor,
default values are the values a program uses if the user does not modify anything.
If I simply download chezzz.cfg and run a test match without changing anything,
it should not harm my system.
That is the meaning of "working config file".
Regards,
Matthias.

[Mogens Larsen]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Mogens Larsen at 14 February 2003 17:26:44:
Als Antwort auf: / In reply to: Re: default hash size = 288 MB ? geschrieben von: / posted by: Matthias Gemuh at 14 February 2003 16:46:12:

Hi Gabor,
default values are the values a program uses if the user does not modify anything.
If I simply download chezzz.cfg and run a test match without changing anything,
it should not harm my system.
That is the meaning of "working config file".

Lack of memory doesn't harm our system as such .
I doubt that it would be possible to distribute a universal configuration file. In regards to RAM, various paths, learning, etc. If it's very, very simple, it'll have to be edited anyway. And in my personal opinion, anyone that runs something without checking it out first deserves a bit of bother .
Regards,
Mogens

[Matthias Gemuh]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Matthias Gemuh at 14 February 2003 17:50:18:
Als Antwort auf: / In reply to: Re: default hash size = 288 MB ? geschrieben von: / posted by: Mogens Larsen at 14 February 2003 17:26:44:

Lack of memory doesn't harm our system as such .

When swapping slows down my system considerably, it IS harmful.

[Marcus Prewarski]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Marcus Prewarski at 14 February 2003 17:53:36:
Als Antwort auf: / In reply to: Re: default hash size = 288 MB ? geschrieben von: / posted by: David Rasmussen at 14 February 2003 14:11:24:

I've added an example chezzz.cfg in my downloads area:
http://chezzz.elektronhjerne.dk/downloads/chezzz.cfg
/David

Use default values that won't kill the computer of "the normal user".
288 MB means you expect user's RAM to exceed 576 MB (2x288). Unrealistic !
Total hash = 32 MB is the norm.

These are not default values, this is an example file.
First of all, I wrote 256M, not 288. Secondly, the number given is _total_. That is, the engine will decide how to use this RAM for the transposition table. So the 256M is total.
Thirdly, whether it's unrealistic or not, I don't know. I have 768 MB RAM myself. And again, it's an example file.
Whose norm?
/David

I have to agree with Matthius here. If you provide a file with your engine it is by default the default file no matter what you would like to call it. If you want people to use your engine first you need to make it easy for people to use. There are more than 150 engines out there and they all work a little different, nobody wants to go reading through a bunch of documentation to figure out the specifics of each engine and then create files and change parameters just so it doesn't kill their system.
If I donwloaded your engine the first thing I would do is start it up and see how it ran and I have 128Mbytes total in my system. If you have 768 Mbytes of RAM then you have more than 95% of other users out there.
-Marcus

[Marcus Prewarski]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Marcus Prewarski at 14 February 2003 18:01:53:
Als Antwort auf: / In reply to: Re: default hash size = 288 MB ? geschrieben von: / posted by: Roger Brown at 14 February 2003 15:12:44:

At least your engine - and its configuration - is generating lots of comment!

I know other authors who wish they had some feedback, any feedback.

I dunno, I'm very happy I don't see many complaints about my engine.
-Marcus

[Charles Reese]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Charles Reese at 14 February 2003 18:12:52:
Als Antwort auf: / In reply to: Re: default hash size = 288 MB ? geschrieben von: / posted by: Marcus Prewarski at 14 February 2003 17:53:36:

To be fair to David his post was titled "Example Chezzz.cfg". Not default. To write a config file from scratch when I am not aware of what parameters are used by the chess engine is one thing. Editing a config file is quite another and I would suggest that all users would want to do that anyway.

[Aaron]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Aaron at 14 February 2003 18:48:26:
Als Antwort auf: / In reply to: Re: default hash size = 288 MB ? geschrieben von: / posted by: Charles Reese at 14 February 2003 18:12:52:

To be fair to David his post was titled "Example Chezzz.cfg". Not default. To write a config file from scratch when I am not aware of what parameters are used by the chess engine is one thing. Editing a config file is quite another and I would suggest that all users would want to do that anyway.

If it ships with Cheezzz (which supposedly it will in the next version), it should not be set too high. I'm guessing a large percentage of people dont borther to change the config files.
A while back, I remember Comet (I think) once accidently shipped with a default config file that had a larger hash table size than on most systems, resulting in a crash. Quite a few complains were made both here and in RGCC about a "buggy" Comet untill the next version changed it to something lower. But then again Comet is one of the older and more popular winboard engines used by many people.
Aaron

Aaron

[Roger Brown]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Roger Brown at 14 February 2003 19:25:18:
Als Antwort auf: / In reply to: Re: default hash size = 288 MB ? geschrieben von: / posted by: Marcus Prewarski at 14 February 2003 17:53:36:

I have to agree with Matthius here. If you provide a file with your engine it is by default the default file no matter what you would like to call it.
If I donwloaded your engine the first thing I would do is start it up and see how it ran and I have 128Mbytes total in my system. If you have 768 Mbytes of RAM then you have more than 95% of other users out there.

Really? So if a programmer goes out of his way to indicate that this is a
sample config file or that this is a readme file or that this is a...then you
can choose to ignore his documentation in favour of your interpretation?

In the event that the configuration caused a problem on your machine then
default would not be the author's, default would be yours.



If you want people to use your engine first you need to make it easy for people to use.

I disagree - but I do understand your point. Users will first of all be far
more inclined to use an engine if it is provided free of cost.
Think about it.
Then it must be stable on whatever operating platform they are using.
Then it has to have some distinctive feature that makes it appealing.

So, users like myself download Ruffian, Yace and Crafty because of strength
of play and analytical capacity.
I use engines like Horizon, Baron, Queen, Francesca Mad and Movei because
their authors are quite responsive to the "demands" of the fans.

I enjoy playing against Chispa in Arena because the faces in the analysis
line are irrestible. = Good for the engine, = Bad for the engine.

I use Delfi, Sjeng and ...but by now I have made my point.

Other users will have a whole slew of different reasons. No problem, all
views can contend.

There are more than 150 engines out there and they all work a little different, nobody wants to go reading through a bunch of documentation to figure out the specifics of each engine and then create files and change parameters just so it doesn't kill their system.
I am a technophobe. My idea of a challenging technological task is changing
a battery. Yet, I rather enjoy documentation. Yace, Crafty, Baron, Esc
and Comet(!) all ship with wonderfully detailed documentation.
Why should the object's creator go through all the trouble to sit down and
write all of that? He must have wanted me to read it I think.
For those who just want to get going and cannot bother with reading, take the
minute or two and have a look at the information on Leo's excellent pages.
Recognise though, that for Leo to have the information for ready use, he
must have waded through the documentation!

Finally, I must sound a warning. A chess program, like any other piece of
software, must be treated with respect. Any piece of software can have
unfortunate effects on your machine. I had a commercial program which
consistently gave me blue screens until the manufacturer devised a patch that
fixed it.

Do not download software and just use it. Read the documentation. The few
minutes it will take could be critical. Treat your computer with respect and
the blue screen crash shall be but a faint memory.

I exrtracted these warnings from the readme files of popular WB engines. All
emphasis - bold or italics - are mine.

Aristarch is free software, and I distribute it without any warranty.
Commercial use is prohibited. It can be freely distributed, as long as the
content of the ZIP-archives is unchanged. I take no responsibility for any
effect it has on your system.

This software is freeware for personal use. Use it as you wish ! No
warranties ! This is from Delfi and the !'s are those of the engine's
author.

Francesca is a chess playing program. It has been
developed in my spare time over the last eleven years, and is
still in a very "rough and ready" form. Note that it comes
on an "as is" basis, with no guarantees whatsoever.If it
breaks your computer, or does not function as you would like it
to, tough!

Enough said.





I believe that your 95% is very conservative. It is a higher percentage.

The above therefore makes the point I have been labouring to make even more
important which is to read, read and read.

The typical readme - eliminating the historical bits as well as Crafty's,
Yace's and Comet's files - would take about five minutes to digest. Max.

Kind of puts it in perspective, doesn't it?

Later.

[David Rasmussen]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: David Rasmussen at 14 February 2003 20:39:56:
Als Antwort auf: / In reply to: Re: default hash size = 288 MB ? geschrieben von: / posted by: Marcus Prewarski at 14 February 2003 18:01:53:

At least your engine - and its configuration - is generating lots of comment!

I know other authors who wish they had some feedback, any feedback.

I dunno, I'm very happy I don't see many complaints about my engine.
-Marcus

I'm happy about the feedback. Very little of it is complaints, most of it is useful commenting. The discussions about cfg files and about SAN notation that have been generated here, are important discussions and not complaints about my engine as I see it.
/David

[David Rasmussen]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: David Rasmussen at 14 February 2003 20:45:43:
Als Antwort auf: / In reply to: Re: default hash size = 288 MB ? geschrieben von: / posted by: Matthias Gemuh at 14 February 2003 16:46:12:

Hi Gabor,
default values are the values a program uses if the user does not modify anything.
If I simply download chezzz.cfg and run a test match without changing anything,
it should not harm my system.
That is the meaning of "working config file".

No one said this was a working config file. This is an _example_ file. If I made an example file with really small tables, the same critique could be said of that: That it wasn't suited for use by users just downloading it and using it. It's really not that hard to understand. And if it harms your system, you should consider changing operating systems.
/David

[David Rasmussen]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: David Rasmussen at 14 February 2003 20:46:25:
Als Antwort auf: / In reply to: Re: default hash size = 288 MB ? geschrieben von: / posted by: Matthias Gemuh at 14 February 2003 17:50:18:

Lack of memory doesn't harm our system as such .

When swapping slows down my system considerably, it IS harmful.

How?

[David Rasmussen]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: David Rasmussen at 14 February 2003 20:58:01:
Als Antwort auf: / In reply to: Re: default hash size = 288 MB ? geschrieben von: / posted by: Marcus Prewarski at 14 February 2003 17:53:36:

I have to agree with Matthius here. If you provide a file with your engine it is by default the default file no matter what you would like to call it.
If I donwloaded your engine the first thing I would do is start it up and see how it ran
and I have 128Mbytes total in my system. If you have 768 Mbytes of RAM then you have more than 95% of other users out there.
-Marcus

I don't provide the file with my engine. People can view or download it separately from the page, and it is clearly stated that it is an example file.
If you want people to use your engine first you need to make it easy for people to use. There are more than 150 engines out there and they all work a little different, nobody wants to go reading through a bunch of documentation to figure out the specifics of each engine and then create files and change parameters just so it doesn't kill their system.
It doesn't "kill their system", even if they were stupid enough to use it without changing it. I'd rather have their computers swapping like hell to make them know that something is wrong, rather than give an example file that had tiny tables that these same people would then use unchanged with the effect that my engine played suboptimally, without them suspecting.
If you did that, you would have no problems because you wouldn't have a configuration file, and so Chezzz would use a 8M hash table and a 4M pawn hash table.
Maybe, it's not important here as I don't force or expect people to try to use 256M hash on their systems, if their systems can't handle it.
If people are too stupid to change that very simple configuration file if needed, I'm not sure I care about them using or testing my engine anyway. I know it's harsh, but that's the way I feel. Userfriendlyness is not providing a configuration file that doesn't work for everybody anyway. People will have to change the EGTB path anyway, for instance.
/David

[David Rasmussen]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: David Rasmussen at 14 February 2003 21:05:40:
Als Antwort auf: / In reply to: I beg to differ...... geschrieben von: / posted by: Roger Brown at 14 February 2003 19:25:18:

If you want people to use your engine first you need to make it easy for people to use.

I disagree - but I do understand your point. Users will first of all be far

I actually agree with his statement. But first of all, I think Chezzz _is_ easy to use. And secondly, providing an _example_ config file with, say, 32M hash, is not my idea of userfriendlyness, since that file will have to be edited anyway for EGTBs etc. Userfriendlyness in this case would be to _ask_ the user about these things that the engine cannot know on it's own, like EGTB path and hash settings. The microsoft version of userfriendlyness in this case would be to search the users entire system for hours (on my harddisk it might be fast, but 95% of all people here might have slower disks) for EGTBs, thereby setting the path itself. What if you have several directories with EGTBs? I have. Also, the microsoft version would also be to determine the amount of physical memory that is unused at the moment, and make a decision based on that about how much to use. That would make tournaments on the same machine hard to do etc.
/David

[David Rasmussen]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: David Rasmussen at 14 February 2003 21:08:32:
Als Antwort auf: / In reply to: Re: default hash size = 288 MB ? geschrieben von: / posted by: Aaron at 14 February 2003 18:48:26:

To be fair to David his post was titled "Example Chezzz.cfg". Not default. To write a config file from scratch when I am not aware of what parameters are used by the chess engine is one thing. Editing a config file is quite another and I would suggest that all users would want to do that anyway.

If it ships with Cheezzz (which supposedly it will in the next version), it

I'm not sure about that. It's available now on the download page. Maybe I will change my scheme altogether and generate a cfg file on startup if necesary, maybe after asking the user some questions. Or I will ship an example file where every line will have a '#' at the beginning, meaning a comment in the Chezzz cfg format.
/David