Ah, thanks Luis, somehow I missed that level of granularity given by those options.
I would wonder, though, if `--level` already presets those, and at least from running GNU Go bots on KGS where I've observed `--level 0` and `--level 10` both settle at 4k, would they really make much difference in strength/rank? There's a GNU Go 2.0 bot on KGS that plays at 11k, which is more what I'm looking for, FYI. Thank you. On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 5:59 PM Luis Felipe Strano Moraes < luis.str...@gmail.com> wrote: > James, > > being quite honest, it will be difficult for you to toggle difficulty by > going to older versions. Likely your best bet if you really want to stay > with the GNU Go engine, would be to toy around with some of configurations > that are also exposed (which level in some cases just defines a preset for) > here: https://www.gnu.org/software/gnugo/gnugo_3.html#SEC31 (see section > Other options affecting strength and speed) > > Best regards, > > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 2:55 PM James Dempsey <james.e.demp...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Thanks Luis, I replaced `-lang-c89` with `-std=c90` and that let me >> compile successfully. >> >> I wanted to try compiling a weaker version :). Even with setting >> `--level` for 3.8 I see no real difference in strength/rank. >> >> On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 4:47 PM Luis Felipe Strano Moraes < >> luis.str...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> James, >>> >>> is there any reason why you are trying to build even older versions? >>> >>> The error there is that that specific compiler flag is not valid for >>> this version of GCC. I'd guess you would have to look at how to switch it >>> for something else to see if it would still build, this seems to be >>> implying it should be using the C89 standard, which you can do in different >>> ways now: >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Standards.html >>> "-ansi, -std=c90 or -std=iso9899:1990" >>> >>> I'm trying to chat with folks from GNU to see if we can sort out making >>> a new release of GNU Go to at the very least solve some compilation issues >>> and make it build again, hopefully have something happen soon on it. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 6:08 AM James Dempsey <james.e.demp...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> I'm experiencing another compilation issue, this time for GNU Go 2.6 on >>>> Debian GNU/Linux 11 (bullseye). >>>> >>>> gcc is >>>> >>>> gcc (Debian 10.2.1-6) 10.2.1 20210110 >>>> >>>> >>>> Error is: >>>> >>>> gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I../engine -I../interface -g -O2 >>>>> -Wall -W -Wpointer-arith -Wbad-function-cast -Wcast-qual -Wcast-align >>>>> -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes >>>>> -Wmissing-declarations -Wp,-lang-c89 -c sgf.c >>>>> cc1: error: command-line option ‘-lang-c89’ is valid for the driver >>>>> but not for C >>>>> make[2]: *** [Makefile:155: sgf.o] Error 1 >>>>> make[1]: *** [Makefile:158: all-recursive] Error 1 >>>>> make: *** [Makefile:306: all-recursive-am] Error 2 >>>> >>>> >>>> One again, not a C programmer and couldn't exactly make sense of the >>>> answers I had searched for. Any help would be appreciated. >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> gnugo-devel mailing list >>>> gnugo-devel@gnu.org >>>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnugo-devel >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Luís Felipe Strano Moraes >>> _______________________________________________ >>> gnugo-devel mailing list >>> gnugo-devel@gnu.org >>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnugo-devel >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> gnugo-devel mailing list >> gnugo-devel@gnu.org >> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnugo-devel >> > > > -- > Luís Felipe Strano Moraes > _______________________________________________ > gnugo-devel mailing list > gnugo-devel@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnugo-devel >
_______________________________________________ gnugo-devel mailing list gnugo-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnugo-devel
