Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:23:31 04/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2000 at 20:04:25, Peter Kappler wrote: >On April 24, 2000 at 18:08:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 24, 2000 at 17:22:05, Peter Kappler wrote: >> >>>> >>>>I'm not sure I am a respectable chess programmer, but I want to ask something: >>>> >>>>Why is Crafty's management of pondering supposed to be superior to Fritz'? >>>> >>>>Why is pondering=off supposed to handicap Crafty more than Fritz? >>>> >>>>Who can seriously believe that Frans Morsch is so lousy that he cannot take >>>>advantage of pondering as well as Bob does? >>>> >>>> >>>> Christophe >>>> >>> >>>Good questions, Christophe, but don't be surprised if they go unanswered. >>> >>>This debate has been raging forever and I still haven't seen any convincing >>>evidence that "no-pondering" hurts Crafty more than it hurts other programs. >>> >>>--Peter >> >> >>You miss the point entirely. The point is that it _does_ hurt crafty. For >>several reasons. But to hit them again:: >> > >I never denied it would hurt Crafty. I'm just waiting for evidence that it >hurts Crafty more than others. > Why do you need evidence? Again, I want you to bring your brand new Lamborghini to my city. I will remove one spark plug from my Dodge pickup engine. You remove one plug from your engine. We are going to hook a chain from my back bumper to yours. And I am going to drag you all over town no matter what you do. Is that a fair test? Both are weaker than normal. But one is hurt more. I suggest that if we report results, we report results about 'optimal matches'. Not about engines with one spark plug removed... If I lose, so what? I have lost plenty of matches. I have won my share of events (recent ICC tournament comes to mind). I'm not emotionally crippled by a loss, or a string of losses. But I insist on having all 8 spark plugs. > >>(1) it screws up the time allocation, because I assume I will save some time >>and I use it before I save it up. Without pondering, this doesn't happen. >> > >Pretty simple concept. My guess is most programs do the same. You would be wrong. I have a couple of commercial programs and their time allocation is quite easy to understand.. and they don't use time before they have it. Some might, I don't know. But several (most?) don't. In the games I was sent last year (Hiarcs I think) Hiarcs ended up with way more time than I did in a couple of endgames. Yet when we played online, that _never_ happened... > > >>(2) I am very aggressive with null-move. As you reduce the time per move, >>there is a noticable point where Crafty will start getting killed by a program >>that doesn't use it as 'carelessly' as I do. This means that (1) above will >>cause (2) to happen since time trouble -> reduced search depth. >> > >Then this problem is going to exist in any fast time control game, *regardless* >of the ponder state... Have you ever heard me say "Crafty isn't a very good blitz/bullet chess player. Because it is an aggresssive null-move program that doesn't restrict the use of null-move at all"??? I have said it often enough... And I gave some games as samples a couple of years ago.. At short search depths, crafty has trouble. Just ask any comp operator on ICC what time control they prefer. 3 0 blitz is the favorite. They do _much_ better at 3 0 than at 5 3. _much_ better. > > >>I simply say that to play a match, you play the two opponents at their strongest >>(and best tested) settings. Not at some crippled level where we spend the next >>year arguing which is affected the most. > > >Great, now I just need access to two *identical* dedicated machines so I can >play an "optimal" match. So, should I go spend $2000 for that new machine, or >maybe it makes more sense for me to try to get an answer to the question in my >previous post? See *my* point? > >--Peter
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.