Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 22:57:43 07/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 29, 2001 at 09:50:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 29, 2001 at 06:51:54, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On July 28, 2001 at 23:42:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >> >>>My conclusion... ponder=off was worse for crafty as its time management was >>>not well designed nor tested for this mode. >> >>A simple (about 2 lines) fix would be to reduce 'usage' a >>bit if pondering is off. > >It already does this. But the problem is that it is not tested much at >all. That was the point of my original discussion about ponder=off matches >using Crafty. One of the things that makes this program so dangerous at present >(against humans) is the number of games it plays. It has played enough that I >don't worry (as I did with Cray Blitz and predecessors) that it might well crash >or misbehave in the infrequent games we played. > >The more a program is tested, the more reliable it will be. But for ponder=off, >it is simply not tested... > > > > >> >>Easy to implement, fixes the most obvious problems, and it's >>logical to have this. >> >>On Linux you can run with two engines with pondering on, but >>I don't trust Windows much for that. Even more because some >>engines (like Gerbil) lower their priorities. Running on of >>them in this kind of match would be very unfair. > >Yes it would. That is the reason for my _second_ observation. one-machine >matches are useless. There are simply too many variables in how the programs >behave (or mis-behave). They are not useless, it all depends what your goals are. Regards, Miguel > > > > >> >>-- >>GCP
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.