Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 09:55:06 07/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 26, 2001 at 10:43:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 26, 2001 at 09:56:24, Matthias Gemuh wrote: > >> >>Hi Robert, >> >>I think you just wanted to make a joke. We all know that PONDER OFF hurts nobody >>(Fritz used its full time). PONDER ON on one CPU is very appropriate to arrive >>at wrong engine comparasons. >> >>Regards, >>Matthias. > > >Nope... no joke at all. Two programs, one machine, my preference is ponder=on. >both will get 1/2 of the machine and the time controls won't be screwed up. > >ponder=off exposes the opportunity for a program to get into time trouble >because it assumes it will save time with ponder=on when it really can't since >it is disabled... Why the program should assume that it will save time in with ponder=on when it knows that it is off already? Shouldn't a program take this into account? If ponder=off is an option for the program, it should notice the difference and act accordingly IMHO. Regards, Miguel > >ponder=on is the right way to test _everything_ IMHO, unless you have so little >memory that both programs won't fit at the same time.
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.