Author: Victor Valenzia
Date: 18:32:56 08/02/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 02, 1999 at 18:53:54, Mark Young wrote: >On August 02, 1999 at 18:36:07, Chris Taylor wrote: > >>I have started a match between Hiarcs 7.32 and Doctor? 3.0 >>Doc is running on an amd 400 with 32 meg ram, and using General.ctg >>Hiarcs is on an amd 350 with 64 meg of ram. Using its own book! >>The time is 40 mins each for the whole game, resign set to early >> >>Just like the result Tania got Hiarcs is 5 up, and the Match, is still on? >>If anyone has the slightest interest, tommorow, i will stop the match, and post >>the results? >> >>Chris Taylor >>England > >With all due respect to Bob Hyatt, having an opinion on something is one thing, >and having data on something is another. It is Bob opinion that under the >Chessbase interface engine vs engine testing with one computer will result in >flawed data. Having done both and looking at the data generated by both, I have >found both methods when using the chessbase engines give pretty much the same >results with a acceptable +/- for the amount of games played. I can find nothing >wrong in engine vs engine testing from the data I have generated. I think when >your match is done, it will pretty much agree with Tania's one computer engine >vs engine results. There is one huge difference in playing on two computers, that being the ponder mode, or thinking on the opponent's time. This can be especially significant in matches with long time controls. For instance, in my Hiarcs vs. Fritz matches on two machines, the programs will often respond instantly (0 seconds) if they have predicted the opponent's move. In engine vs. engine matches, they start from scratch on every move. Correctly predicting the opponent's moves can save huge amounts of time that can be allocated to more difficult positions. In my opinion, this is more accurate. Imagine if you will, two human chess players with alzheimer's disease. After one of them makes a move, he is forced to leave the board, then the other human with alzheimer's comes to the board to make his move. This is repeated until the conclusion of the game. In essence, each player is making a cold analysis of a position each time he steps up to the board. Compare this with two mentally healthy chess players sitting at the board, each one calculating counter-attacks during his opponent's move. I think that this is a fair analogy of engine vs. engine matches and matches played on two machines.
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.