Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 17:38:19 07/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 2000 at 18:59:14, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On July 18, 2000 at 18:04:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>If everyone plays equally worse, then >>no harm is done. But adding the extra degree of freedom is simply adding more >>noise to an already complex and unstable system of comparing chess engines. > >Just out of curiosity. What makes you think that all programs implement ponder >equally well? Are you suggesting that a system of comparing chess engines is >unstable when your programs isn't tuned for a certain parameter and stable when >it is? > >Best wishes... >Mogens Well said. This is one issue where I really disagree with Bob. Imagine if the following statements were made by a programmer: 1) "My program is designed to play against humans, not computers. Do not play my program against computers - the results are meaningless." (This was a favorite of Chris Whittington, author of CSTal). 2) "My program isn't designed to play at fast time controls. Matches played at a fast time control with my program have no scientific value." (Another CW favorite) Now, two more extreme examples, just to make my point: 3) "My program doesn't use endgame tablebases. Do not match it against a program that uses tablebases - this would not be fair" 4) "My program doesn't ponder. When playing it against other engines, make sure they aren't pondering, either." Anybody who releases a winboard-compatible engine should realize that it is going to be used in single-computer, non-ponder matches. Knowing this, it seems a bit careless to ignore ponder=off time management. --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.