Author: blass uri
Date: 08:15:52 08/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 1999 at 10:42:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 29, 1999 at 10:06:40, blass uri wrote: > >>On August 29, 1999 at 06:29:21, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>>Hello Ed, >>> >>>Hello Frank, >>> >>>>>We (the programmers) can argue what we want Bob but this is a lost case >>>>>on before hand because the formula of playing 2 programs on one machine >>>>>is too good to be true. People are not going to give this up. >>>> >>>>>Same story as with book-learning, it hides the real strength of a chess >>>>>engine. Still people take the numbers for real. Another lost case :-) >>>> >>>>I play more than 2000 games on one machine, looked in the LOG-File, see the >>>>games and I can not say that this games the formula 2 is. >>>> >>>>You and Bob say that this the formula 2 is. I mean that permanent brain is not >>>>importent for matches with longer time control. Its 20-40 ELO not more. 30% >>>>Ponder hints pro match, and from this 30% 3% moves that are better and 1% >>>>moves >>>>that are not better with permanent brain (matches with longer time controls on >>>>fast PCs). >>>> >>>>When I play with an fast processor and the engine come under tournament >>>>time to >>>>13/01 this engine come with an AMD K6-3 2000 MHz to 13/05 (I think). And with >>>>ponder or not with ponder I become not (in der Regel, in german) an better >>>>move. >>>> >>>>I can not see in the WinBoard debug files problems with time control without >>>>ponder. >>>> >>>>This is not a formula 2, this is formula 1,5 with Schumacher in position 1 >>>>:-))) >>>>and Hyatt and Schröder in position 21/22 ! >>>> >>>>But a forumula 1,5 with good statistic and results. >>>> >>>>This is for me suspect, suspect we your statement about more ELO by using >>>>Table-Bases. I think that 4-pieces make 20-30 ELO and 5-pieces make 40-50 ElO, >>>>not 5 ELO ! >>>> >>>>Other programmer thinking we I and other programmer thinking in the question >>>>about matches on one PC we I. >>>> >>>>I can give all logfiles from the WT-5 tournament and you can looking. >>>>That´s no >>>>proof of what you have been claiming, I will see an proof and I have this >>>>proof >>>>when I looked my results and in the log file form the WB Engines. >>>> >>>>OK, better are matches with 2 PCs, but for testing and playing with 2 >>>>engines is >>>>one PC enough and the results are interestet and good for all people that we >>>>play tournaments. >>>> >>>>And when make Ed Schröder an Rebel Decade WinBoard Engine for more and more >>>>WinBoard Fan`s ? >>>> >>>>Best wishes >>>>Frank >>>> >>>>In german for Ed ! >>>>Ist mir auf englisch zu kompliziert. >>>> >>>>Ed, stelle Dir mal folgende Frage ! >>>> >>>>Wenn bei einer Engine aufgrund Permanent Brain Treffer das Zeitmanagment >>>>verändert wird und es zu Zügen kommt welche schneller ausgespielt werden >>>>oder zu >>>>Zügen welche langsamer ausgespielt werden hebt sich das wieder auf wenn vor >>>>der >>>>Zeitkontrolle doch wieder eine vernüftige Restzeit zur Verfügung steht. Mit >>>>anderen Worten muß die Engine sich für Züge mehr Zeit gelassen haben und hat >>>>dann auch Vorteile erzielt. Vorteile und Nachteile ! >>> >>>> >>>>Crafty blitzt nicht die letzten Züge von der Zeitkontrolle (Matches auf >>>>einen PC >>>>ohne Ponder) und hat z.B. bei 40 Zügen in 40 Minuten immer noch >>>>durchschnittlich >>>>10 Minuten für die Züge 30-40 ! >>>> >>>>Daher verstehe ich die Äußerungen nicht, denn es gibt ja dann auch Vorteile. >>>>Vorteile weil für Züge auch eine längere Zeit zur Verfügung steht. Das muß >>>>doch >>>>absolut logisch sein. Ich denke nicht das dies statistisch gesehen relevant >>>>ist. >>>> >>>>Es sind keine zwei PCs mehr notwendig für Engine-Engine Vergleiche ! >>>>Für 20-40 ELO ? Diesen Nachteil haben alle Programme ! >>>> >>>>Gruß >>>>Frank >>> >>>I agree all programs have this problem but you overlook one important thing >>>which is my main complaint to make engine-engine on one PC being trustworthy. >>> >>>Due to the lack of the permanent brain the "time control" (TC) gets messed >>>up. TC is an important part of a chess program. Chess programs for instance >>>are keen to keep a certain amount of spare time in case the program finds >>>itself in trouble (dropping score etc.). Without a permanent brain this "spare >>>time" case is going to fail as the permanent brain definitely is a part of it. >>> >>>This is just one example. I am sure that in every program TC is done in >>>different ways as there are many things involved in TC. >>> >>>To compete in engine-engine on one PC the program needs a *special* >>>TC that takes care of the lack of the permanent brain. Next the program >>>needs a piece of smart software that automatically detects that it is forced >>>to play without its permanent brain because it is unlikely the user has set >>>the permanent brain to "off" for the match, right? >>> >>>The bottom line: program_X may have all done this and program_Y not. If >>>so program_X will have a very big advantage. I estimate it at 50-100 elo. >>>And how can you know that if it is done or not? >> >>I think it is clearly less than 50-100 elo. >>50-100 elo difference is the difference between p200 and p90(see ssdf results). >> >>If I assume that you have 1.5 minutes per move instead of 3 minutes per move for >>moves 31-40 then you are 2 times slower only for 10 moves and faster for the >>first 30 moves so you lose clearly less than 50-100 elo. >> >>I estimate the difference is 20 elo if only one program is prepared to games >>without permanent brain >> >>Uri > > >No... you are missing his point. playing without thinking on the opponent's >time is 'unnatural' in that we don't test this way. At least most of us >don't. So it is possible that program A has been tested/tuned so that it works >fine without pondering, but program B might only be tested with it on. That is >a big handicap to program B, and can skew the results far from what they would >be on two machines... > >The problem is all about whether the program has been tested/tweaked to run >well in that environment. It would probably be better to play on one machine >using pondering instead of turning it off. And even that has problems... I am interested to know how much do you gain in 2 computers from smart using of time relative to the simple method of using the same time for every move. I guess that you cannot earn 50-100 elo only from smart using of time. Uri
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.