Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 01:41:00 07/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 2000 at 16:41:11, Volker Pittlik wrote: >On July 19, 2000 at 13:19:07, Mogens Larsen wrote: > >[...] > >If I'm allowed to give a statement. > >Firstly what I wanted to test is: are the the results of ponder _on and >ponder_off tournaments are comparable. And it's very likely to me they are. Very easy it's a similar comparision as a bit slower hardware versus a bit faster hardware. Basically: if your program doesn't search very deep, like 8 or 9 ply, versus opponent 12 to 14 ply, then obviously pondering helps more to get to a depth where it matters less that opponent searches deeper. >If you you look in the results in my games archive you will easily find that >Crafty's outcoming in the ponder_off round is probably randomnly. There isn't >any evidence that Crafty is playing stronger with ponder_off. I assume _every_ >program is playing stronger with ponder_on. > >Secondly Crafty wasn't the only program envolved in this test. The outcoming of >all other program are nearly the same in both tournaments . Maybe _all_ other >authors of the other programs have implemented ponder_off time management in a >similar rudimentary way as it has done in Crafty. But this seems very unlikely >to me. > >So what to do next to test the effect of ponder_on? I don't know yet. To do >another test with other engines, different time controls, more/less games seems >to be the wrong way because I don't know anything about the time management in >the other programs. > >To use special versions of the programs which are allways or never ponder are >possibly the way to do such a test. > >Volker > > >>I agree, there is very little data to suggest that, except Pittlik's data. In >>general I don't think there's any correlation between the comparable strength of >>programs using either ponder=on and off, except maybe in a small spectrum with >>certain conditions on timecontrol, hash, computer and whatever. >> >>My main objection is you complaining about data achieved by using a parameter >>included in the program, and writing it off as random. That's unappropriate >>IMHO, especially since the data put forward by Pittlik was interesting, but >>inconclusive by itself. There's no need to use the machinegun every time :o). >> >>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.