Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: PONDER=ON and TableBases on 1 PC

Author: Terry McCracken

Date: 23:21:06 07/27/01

Go up one level in this thread


On July 28, 2001 at 01:44:09, Terry McCracken wrote:

>On July 28, 2001 at 01:26:50, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>>On July 28, 2001 at 01:12:41, Terry McCracken wrote:
>>
>>>On July 27, 2001 at 18:58:30, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>>
>>>>On July 27, 2001 at 18:44:45, Roy Eassa wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On July 27, 2001 at 16:55:55, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On July 27, 2001 at 16:51:08, Roy Eassa wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Be careful, Dann.  Dr. Hyatt has argued strongly that ponder should always be
>>>>>>>on, even with a single CPU.  (It seemed counter-intuitive to me too, but you
>>>>>>>should check out his recent postings -- over the past couple days, I think.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not when both engines play on the same machine.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>No way.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes way!  I reacted the same way (in my head), but I respect Dr. Hyatt and his
>>>>>arguments are worth reading at least!
>>>>
>>>>If you run two engines which are both pondering on a single CPU machine, then
>>>>you are simply out of your mind.
>>>>
>>>>I think you must have misread the arguments.
>>>
>>>No Dan he's read the arguements correctly!
>>>
>>>Posted by Robert Hyatt (Profile) on July 27, 2001 at 13:28:16:
>>>
>>>In Reply to: Re: Permanent Brain ON vs Permanent Brain OFF posted by Uri Blass
>>>on July 27, 2001 at 11:58:57:
>>>
>>>
>>>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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>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
>>>
>>>
>>>I disagree.   When this first cropped up a couple of years ago, I ran a test,
>>>gnuchess on a single-cpu, vs crafty on a quad pentium-pro 200, but using only
>>>one cpu.  The quad was far slower than the 500mhz single cpu by a significant
>>>amount.  The match was pretty even (ponder=on) even though crafty had a much
>>>slower processor.  With ponder=off, the match was way more lop-sided in favor
>>>of GNU because crafty would get into time trouble and near the end of the
>>>time period it would have to move too quickly to avoid losing on time.
>>>
>>>It was _clearly_ worse.  And by more like 100 points, too.  I adjusted it a bit
>>>to help, but I have _never_ invested as much time in the ponder=off timing as
>>>I have in the ponder=on timing.  And I never will, any more than I am going to
>>>try to tune my son's mustang to run on a road coarse when we only take it to
>>>the 1/8th and 1/4th mile drag strips...
>>>
>>>I think you should spend the time making it optimal in the way it will normally
>>>be used, not in oddball configurations...
>>>
>>>
>>>I ran a bunch of games, everything equal but the hardwar
>>>
>>>
>>>Quote/Hyatt; Nope... no joke at all.  Two programs, one machine, my preference
>>>is ponder=on.
>>
>>Wrong.  That's clearly two machines.  Let me pull out the relevant part so you
>>can take a gander:
>>
>>"... I ran a test, gnuchess on a single-cpu, vs crafty on a quad pentium-pro
>>200, but using only one cpu."
>>
>>Clearly, he is talking about two different machines.
>
>Posted by Robert Hyatt (Profile) on July 27, 2001 at 13:28:16:
>
>In Reply to: Re: Permanent Brain ON vs Permanent Brain OFF posted by Uri Blass
>on July 27, 2001 at 11:58:57:
>
>
>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 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
>
>
>I disagree.   When this first cropped up a couple of years ago, I ran a test,
>gnuchess on a single-cpu, vs crafty on a quad pentium-pro 200, but using only
>one cpu.  The quad was far slower than the 500mhz single cpu by a significant
>amount.  The match was pretty even (ponder=on) even though crafty had a much
>slower processor.  With ponder=off, the match was way more lop-sided in favor
>of GNU because crafty would get into time trouble and near the end of the
>time period it would have to move too quickly to avoid losing on time.
>
>It was _clearly_ worse.  And by more like 100 points, too.  I adjusted it a bit
>to help, but I have _never_ invested as much time in the ponder=off timing as
>I have in the ponder=on timing.  And I never will, any more than I am going to
>try to tune my son's mustang to run on a road coarse when we only take it to
>the 1/8th and 1/4th mile drag strips...
>
>I think you should spend the time making it optimal in the way it will normally
>be used, not in oddball configurations...
>
>
>I ran a bunch of games, everything equal but the hardwar
>
>
>
>I copied the wrong post Dan! He does say one machine!

*Hyatt/Quote "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."

Wrong.  That's clearly two machines.  Let me pull out the relevant part so you
>>can take a gander:
>>
>>"... I ran a test, gnuchess on a single-cpu, vs crafty on a quad pentium-pro
>>200, but using only one cpu."
>>
>>Clearly, he is talking about two different machines

Yes here he is clearly talking about two machines.

But the quote above is _one_ machine.


Terry



This page took 0.03 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.