Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 10:19:27 07/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 27, 2001 at 11:58:57, Uri Blass wrote: >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 do not believe it, I think it is important to him. I bet that Bob receives a lot of feedback and listen to his public. He might have higher priorities, though. >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. Yes, but at that level people spend 6 months to improve their engine 20 elo points, you know, people here in CCC would kill for 20 points :-) Regards, Miguel > >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.