Francesca 0.80a released

[Tom King]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Tom King at 06 June 2000 23:34:13:
I just realized that Francesca 0.80, (which I released yesterday) was compiled with an incorrect flag. This resulted in it only using 16MB of hash, not 32MB.
I've recompiled the whole thing, and called it 0.80a. The update will be available from my website (www.btinternet.com/~tom_king) shortly, and hopefully Frank's site before long.
The difference in strength between 0.80 and 0.80a is not going to be big!
Cheers,
Tom

[Dann Corbit]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Dann Corbit at 06 June 2000 23:44:21:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Francesca 0.80a released geschrieben von: / posted by: Tom King at 06 June 2000 23:34:13:

I just realized that Francesca 0.80, (which I released yesterday) was compiled with an incorrect flag. This resulted in it only using 16MB of hash, not 32MB.
I've recompiled the whole thing, and called it 0.80a. The update will be available from my website (www.btinternet.com/~tom_king) shortly, and hopefully Frank's site before long.
The difference in strength between 0.80 and 0.80a is not going to be big!

This one brought me a chuckle. Back in the 1970's, when I was programming on an IBM mainframe, an error code of 80a [usually] meant that you did not allocate enough memory to run the job properly!
Sort of a pun on the new name.



My FTP site

[Mogens Larsen]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Mogens Larsen at 07 June 2000 00:09:43:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Francesca 0.80a released geschrieben von: / posted by: Tom King at 06 June 2000 23:34:13:

I just realized that Francesca 0.80, (which I released yesterday) was compiled with an incorrect flag. This resulted in it only using 16MB of hash, not 32MB.
I've recompiled the whole thing, and called it 0.80a. The update will be available from my website (www.btinternet.com/~tom_king) shortly, and hopefully Frank's site before long.
The difference in strength between 0.80 and 0.80a is not going to be big!
Cheers,
Tom

Maybe you ought to have both versions at your website. Not everyone is capable of allocating 32Mb of memory to hash on their machine. Especially if running a match between two engines. Is it difficult to implement user control of hash size?
Best wishes...
Mogens

[Tanna]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Tanna at 07 June 2000 03:24:44:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Francesca 0.80a released geschrieben von: / posted by: Tom King at 06 June 2000 23:34:13:
Can anyone give me the direct url (to the zipped files) to download 0.8 or 0.8a?.
My browser does not support frames so I get blank pages at Tom King's site.

I just realized that Francesca 0.80, (which I released yesterday) was compiled with an incorrect flag. This resulted in it only using 16MB of hash, not 32MB.
I've recompiled the whole thing, and called it 0.80a. The update will be available from my website (www.btinternet.com/~tom_king) shortly, and hopefully Frank's site before long.
The difference in strength between 0.80 and 0.80a is not going to be big!
Cheers,
Tom

[Andrew Tanner]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Andrew Tanner at 07 June 2000 08:24:56:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Francesca 0.80a released geschrieben von: / posted by: Tom King at 06 June 2000 23:34:13:
Fran seems to underutilize it's time in short blitz time controls. In a typical 3 0 match under win98 AMDk6-266 it uses only about 20 seconds for approximately 40 moves.

I just realized that Francesca 0.80, (which I released yesterday) was compiled with an incorrect flag. This resulted in it only using 16MB of hash, not 32MB.
I've recompiled the whole thing, and called it 0.80a. The update will be available from my website (www.btinternet.com/~tom_king) shortly, and hopefully Frank's site before long.
The difference in strength between 0.80 and 0.80a is not going to be big!
Cheers,
Tom

[Volker Pittlik]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Volker Pittlik at 07 June 2000 09:55:43:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: Francesca 0.80a released geschrieben von: / posted by: Tanna at 07 June 2000 03:24:44:

Can anyone give me the direct url (to the zipped files) to download 0.8 or 0.8a?.

http://www.btinternet.com/~tom_king/franwb.zip
Volker

[Tanna]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Tanna at 08 June 2000 08:04:15:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: Francesca 0.80a released geschrieben von: / posted by: Volker Pittlik at 07 June 2000 09:55:43:

Can anyone give me the direct url (to the zipped files) to download 0.8 or 0.8a?.

http://www.btinternet.com/~tom_king/franwb.zip
Volker

[Tom King]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Tom King at 08 June 2000 22:38:50:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: Francesca 0.80a released geschrieben von: / posted by: Dann Corbit at 06 June 2000 23:44:21:

I just realized that Francesca 0.80, (which I released yesterday) was compiled with an incorrect flag. This resulted in it only using 16MB of hash, not 32MB.
I've recompiled the whole thing, and called it 0.80a. The update will be available from my website (www.btinternet.com/~tom_king) shortly, and hopefully Frank's site before long.
The difference in strength between 0.80 and 0.80a is not going to be big!

This one brought me a chuckle. Back in the 1970's, when I was programming on an IBM mainframe, an error code of 80a [usually] meant that you did not allocate enough memory to run the job properly!
Sort of a pun on the new name.

ha!
so you've been working with computers a while then, Dann?
seriously, though, various comments about has table sizes have made me think about using some sort of configurable "ini" file.
Cheers,
Tom

[Tom King]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Tom King at 08 June 2000 22:43:16:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: Francesca 0.80a released geschrieben von: / posted by: Andrew Tanner at 07 June 2000 08:24:56:

Fran seems to underutilize it's time in short blitz time controls. In a typical 3 0 match under win98 AMDk6-266 it uses only about 20 seconds for approximately 40 moves.

I just realized that Francesca 0.80, (which I released yesterday) was compiled with an incorrect flag. This resulted in it only using 16MB of hash, not 32MB.
I've recompiled the whole thing, and called it 0.80a. The update will be available from my website (www.btinternet.com/~tom_king) shortly, and hopefully Frank's site before long.
The difference in strength between 0.80 and 0.80a is not going to be big!
Cheers,
Tom

You're quite right. Especially if you're using incremental clock..
Something else on the to do list..
Basically, Fran sucks big time when you run with the incremental clock. But at least it no longer crashes when you select that.
Use the standard clock!
Rgds,
Tom

[Dann Corbit]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Dann Corbit at 09 June 2000 01:48:14:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: Francesca 0.80a released geschrieben von: / posted by: Tom King at 08 June 2000 22:38:50:

I just realized that Francesca 0.80, (which I released yesterday) was compiled with an incorrect flag. This resulted in it only using 16MB of hash, not 32MB.
I've recompiled the whole thing, and called it 0.80a. The update will be available from my website (www.btinternet.com/~tom_king) shortly, and hopefully Frank's site before long.
The difference in strength between 0.80 and 0.80a is not going to be big!

This one brought me a chuckle. Back in the 1970's, when I was programming on an IBM mainframe, an error code of 80a [usually] meant that you did not allocate enough memory to run the job properly!
Sort of a pun on the new name.

ha!
so you've been working with computers a while then, Dann?
seriously, though, various comments about has table sizes have made me think about using some sort of configurable "ini" file.

Started around 1977 on IBM Mainframes and some funky machines (a vacuum tube thingy called 'Saturn' for instance).
Or a command line option (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean?).


My FTP site