Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 04:33:16 07/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 2000 at 06:40:38, Ralf Elvsén wrote: >Let me make one thing clear: if a programmer explicitely says his program >has a good ponder = OFF management I have few problems with testing the >program in this mode (see below). I think it's safe to say that almost all programs have good time management with ponder off, otherwise it would be virtually impossible to test the program without financial support. Do you really think that the authors of the programs on the Young Talents CD started testing their programs on a dual or quad machine? The tweaking of the various chess program parameters did most likely occur on one machine using ponder off, unless the author is a skilled chess player or know someone there is. >I prefer to stare at Junior at Dortmund. I don't think that will last very long. >How it compares to other programs I don't know and >this is exactly my point. If I want to estimate performance under optimal >conditions (ponder = ON) with results from ponder = OFF this introduces an >uncontrolled parameter. Well, noone is suggesting doing that. Ponder off is adequate for estimating the comparative strength between programs, not the actual strength of programs with ponder on. That would be a ludicrous attempt. >So do I. At least it isn't any worse than e.g. Hiarcs' . But I only >look at these games because I have convinced myself of this. I wouldn't >take an unknown program, run 100 ponder = OFF games overnight and then >think the result reflected its playing strength with ponder = ON. Again, noone is doing that. >All I need to know is that the programmer wants to compete in the >ponder = ON business. Then it is just another aspect of the program, >like king safety or endgame knowledge. Its quality is affecting the >performance of the program, together with every other piece of knowledge >it has, and is reflected in the results. And this is what I care about. If you want quality then ponder on is the best option, but quality is unimportant in engine-engine comparison. >You have a point when you're saying (if I understand you correctly) that >the relative quality of ponder ON/OFF management for two programs is >difficult to know and poses a problem. Even if both programmers says >both modes are competitive, one program can be relatively weak in >ponder = ON and strong in ponder = OFF. Since I think the ponder = ON >mode is the only interesting game, this is another argument for me to >not take ponder = OFF games so seriously without careful observations. I think we're interested in different things. You're interested in the quality of the games played. Fair enough, but I'm interested in the results and since there's no evidence to suggest that ponder OFF skews the relative strength between programs I prefer that option. If I used ponder ON on one machine then critiscism would be aimed at cpu management, so it's a no win situation. However, if I want to be beaten to a pulp by Crafty I do use ponder ON :o). Best wishes... Mogens
This page took 0.01 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.