Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 10:57:32 07/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 26, 2001 at 12:36:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 26, 2001 at 11:09:02, Chessfun 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... >>> >>>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. >> >>Didn't Volker Pittlik do some tests with on v off a while back and found the >>differences minimal. Does anyone have the url for the page?. >> >>Sarah. > > >The differences can be minimal if both programs make the same mistakes in how >they allocate time. But not necessarily. IE remove the airbox/cleaner from >your car, and it will run just fine if you avoid dusty/gritty environments. > >Remove the airbox from your outboard boat motor and you will discover that it >will run lean and possibly fry a piston or two. > >It all depends on the design decisions that were made by the two different >designers. I myself haven't seen a real problem with the time with pondering off. However I could re-test some of the engines with pondering on just to see if I get any real difference in results? Terry
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.