Author: Michael Nolan
Date: 10:05:47 03/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 14, 2004 at 10:34:14, William Penn wrote: >I have often wondered the same thing, but now believe it is impossible to answer >that question [my composition window glitch mentioned below just returned >here!?]. Comparing strengths of programs requires extensive tests to be reliable >[another composition window glitch here!?] such as SSDF, but it's practically >impossible to run such tests at long time controls like we want. So I believe we >have to settle for the test results from faster time controls [another shift of >composition window text to the left!?] such as SSDF uses, and keep our fingers >crossed. >At such long time controls in infinite analysis mode another special factor >becomes important [another composition window shift!?] too, related to how often >the analysis is displayed in the engine window. Do we have to wait 1 hour, 2 >hours, 10 hours, or exactly how long for the next "leg" of analysis to finish >then deign to display the result for user to see? I find that certain engines >are better in that regard, while others can take very long times between their >engine window outputs. Shredder seems to be one of the best in that regard. It >may [another composition window text shift to the left!?] also help to reduce >hash size, which seems to make those output intervals shorter. Of course that >runs counter to common scuttlebutt that longer time controls benefit most from >larger hash sizes. Do none of the engines indicate how much time is left until publication of the next output?
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.