Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:50:57 07/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 2000 at 20:38:19, Peter Kappler wrote: >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) > that is a perfectly reasonable statement. Things that work good at 14 plies don't work so well at 8 plies (null move r=3 is one such thing). If a programmer does tune for long games, he might take a real beating at short games. And vice-versa. No contradiction there at all... > >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" There is something to that. Although the merit is debatable. The programmer _could_ add EGTB support with a day's work... > >4) "My program doesn't ponder. When playing it against other engines, make sure >they aren't pondering, either." You are missing the point. The engine has a "natural mode". Ponder=on. I want to race your car, but it is too expensive so I am going to restrict the fuel usage for both of our cars. Fair? maybe. Will it give any idea of how the race will go _without_ the fuel usage restriction? absolutely not. That is what this is all about. > > >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 Feel free to fix mine. I don't have the time, nor the interest, since I don't like racing with three wheels and consider it meaningless.
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.