Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:41:54 07/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 26, 2001 at 12:55:06, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >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, because in my case, 99.9% of all games played have ponder=on. I only disable pondering to debug so that I can reproduce the same searches over and over when necessary. Since almost all real games are played with ponder=on, I don't have a special time-allocation formula for ponder=on and another one for ponder=off. I just have one that _assumes_ ponder=on. I see no reason to waste what little time I have working on something that is hardly going to be used... >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.