Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: ponder_on ponder_off comparision

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 08:48:53 07/19/00

Go up one level in this thread


On July 19, 2000 at 05:26:14, Mogens Larsen wrote:

>On July 18, 2000 at 21:46:42, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>I don't think that they do implement pondering equally well.  But that is the
>>native mode the engine operates in.  And it is the mode the engine will be in
>>when playing serious games.  Which means that is the mode that will be used to
>>produce what I call important results.  So if you have a pondering bug, it will
>>show itself in the important games where you use pondering...
>
>[snip bad analogy]
>
>Yes, that is true, even though uneven implementation of ponder would also add an
>extra degree of freedom to a unstable system of comparing computer chess
>programs. Calling it native mode doesn't change that. On a single cpu machine
>the native mode is ponder OFF when it comes to engine-engine matches, so let's
>keep the semantics out of it.


Who makes that rule?  I run engine vs engine tests all the time and use
ponder=on on a single machine with no problems at all.  I use ponder=off
only when I am testing/debugging so I can get reproducible results when I
need them.

If you ask chess program users how they use their engines, 99.999% will say they
use it as it comes out of the box... which is "ponder=on".  That is why I call
it "native mode".  That is the _only_ way I play 'serious' games with Crafty
on the chess servers, at human events, etc.



> Noone disagrees as far as I know with the
>importance of playing serious games with the optimal settings achieveable.
>Though I believe this is irrelevant for the majority, unless you're blessed with
>good hardware or is a good chess player.
>
>The truth is that your program offer the possibility of disabling ponder,
>whereby it becomes a testable feature of your program. It doesn't matter how
>well this feature is implemented, because that wouldn't be relevant to ponder
>games as well, by your own admission.

All I can say, definitively, is that ponder=on has been tested for several
million games.  Ponder=off has hardly been tested at all.  I am happy with the
time usage in ponder=on games.  I only know that it is tuned for that mode, and
that certain assumptions will fail if it is turned off.

ponder=off is not intended for playing games, and I suppose I could add that
test to the code to not allow it.  It is only intended for testing/debugging.
Have you ever used the "testev" command?  Probably not as that is also a
debugging tool I use, but it is useless for anything else...

I don't see an obligation for freeware authors _or_ commercial authors to do
enough testing to make sure that even oddball configurations work well.  Does
your automobile float in water?  I don't care.  Of course if someone drives off
a bridge, they might be interested to be sure they have time to get out before
it sinks.  But I am aware of no testing that requires this to happen.






>
>The fact that Crafty thinks that it is pondering, while not doing so, is a flaw
>in the program. If only flawless programs were tested we wouldn't be able to
>test that many programs, if any at all. I suggest applying one of two options:
>
>1) Disable ponder OFF completely.

I can do that.



>2) Fix ponder OFF.


I don't have the time to play as many games as needed to tune/test this.  The
current time control code was developed over several years, with lots of tuning
and adjusting every few hundred games.



>
>As long as it exists it's a feature of your program, like it's a feature of many
>others. You may ignore the results, but they cannot be described as random. They
>reflect the state of the program concerning the features implemented.

I don't disagree.  I simply state, after every such match I see, "this doesn't
necessarily reflect how these two engines would behave in a _real_ chess match
under normal circumstances (ponder=on, etc.)"  There are other things wrong
with one machine matches. Hash table size.  EGTB cache size.  etc.  So you
really make _several_ compromises when playing such matches.

Sort of like an automobile race with two drivers, but one automobile.  It just
doesn't show the same thing as a real race.





>
>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.