Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 16:09:20 07/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 17, 2000 at 17:26:37, Ralf Elvsén wrote: >We obviously have different opinions on in which settings the most >interesting results can be found. I think human opposition or two-comp >games are most important. You think one-comp games. They may be more >frequent here, but the people posting here are a little special :) No, we don't disagree on the most interesting results. That is obviously from either human-comp or comp-comp with ponder, but that isn't really the issue. Most amateur comp-comp testing is about comparative strength, where ponder off is equally good as a measurement of that, and there's more data to process due to fewer hardware restrictions. You may not like that, but that's the way it is. >It doesn't take a lot of effort and money to arrange comp-comp games >if one really wants to. Human opposition is the ultimate testground >for many years to come. I wouldn't be too sure of that, unless you want to stare at ICC games. >Of course ponder OFF is supported and ponder ON is almost equally trivial to >implement. The existence of these features, however, has nothing to do >with how well they are supported. Time management is a complex affair and >a programmer must invest a lot of time to solve it. So with minimal effort >both modes can be supported in the sense that they exist. Then comes the >tricky part of doing it good. The programmer chooses: do I implement both or >one, and if so which one? Maybe some/many of the amateur programmers >concentrate on ponder = OFF. One thing must be certain though: the >professionals make sure their ponder = ON management is as good as it >can be. How much time they spend on ponder = OFF is often completely >unknown. And one professional, Bob, doesn't spend any time at all >after his rudimentary implementation. He has stated as much that it >takes endless hours of testing to get it right and it's not worth the >effort. I suspect there are all kinds between the extremes. I'm not sure you know what you are talking about at all. You have no idea about how rudimentary the implementation of ponder OFF of Crafty is and how it compares to other programs. I suspect Hyatt's rudimentary implementation is quite adequate, especially since you don't know how the ponder ON implementation measure up to the competition either. Best wishes... Mogens
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.