Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:58:57 07/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 27, 2001 at 11:18:08, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >On July 26, 2001 at 14:41:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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... > >Well, it is used a lot actually by lots of people already. Most of the people >are running matches with ponder=off for some reasons. >If both engines were tuned for ponder=off, it will be the best condition to >optimze the resources since time used pondering is never as good a time used >thinking. For instance, you have a competitive mindset in your answer but if my >purpose is to run a match between engines to learn a particulat opening, I want >my resources to be used as efficient as possible. That is ponder=off for both. >Maybe you could consider making Crafty to be able to process "ponder=off" >accordingly because there will be users that would benefit from it. > >Regards, >Miguel Crafty is not a commercial program so I guess that the way that users use it is not important for Bob. I also do not think that the difference between ponder on and ponder off is more than 20 elo in most of the practical cases. Uri
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.