Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: OK, we can make a test ...

Author: Frank Quisinsky

Date: 07:44:22 07/30/01

Go up one level in this thread


On July 30, 2001 at 09:31:28, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On July 29, 2001 at 10:50:47, Frank Quisinsky wrote:
>
>>
>>Hi Bob,
>>
>>the same discuss then for 2 years here :-)
>>
>>I, the ex non ponderer, will say the following:
>>
>>01.
>>You have right if you say that with ponder = off engines have time manangment
>>problems, not all and not in all games but it's an important point. I know that
>>this is for statistics not sooo important (ELO statistic).
>>
>>02.
>>Match without ponder on single system with Athlon 1Ghz:
>>Engine A = 1Ghz
>>Engine B = 1Ghz
>>
>>Match with ponder on a single system with Athlon 1Ghz:
>>Engine A = ~ 497-500Mhz
>>Engine B = ~ 497-500Mhz
>>
>>Now we have 25-40% ponder hits if the engines play on the same level (after my
>>experiments).
>>
>>Result:
>>500Mhz + 25-40% ponder hits = ~700MHz.
>>
>>With ponder = on, the matches are running with 700Mhz on 1Ghz Athlon!
>>With ponder = off, the matches are running with 1Ghz on 1Ghz Athlon!
>>
>>I believe better is to play with ponder = off on single system. OK, the time
>>managment is a good point so say please with ponder but 300 MHz is a better
>>point to say please without ponder.
>>
>>03.
>>4-piece and 5-piece tablebases and engine-engine matches on a Dual system ...
>>
>>This is not very clear.
>>We have engines witch used tablebases very aggressive or not very aggressive.
>>
>>Example:
>>Gromit - Patzer with 5-pieces ...
>>
>>Gromit played move 50 in 2:45 with ponder = on and 5-pieces.
>>Only 20-30% processor time in this game if Gromit used 5-pieces.
>>Patzer played move 50 in 1.25 with ponder = on and 5-pieces.
>>
>>Now the same positions with 4-pieces ...
>>
>>Gromit play move 50 in 1.58! with ponder = on and *4-pieces*.
>>Patzer played move 50 in 1.13 with ponder = on and *4-pieces*.
>>
>>Without 4-piece tablesbases are the differents not very important.
>>
>>In my opinion it is better to play eng-eng matches with ponder on a dual system
>>with 4-piece tablebases.
>>
>>Best
>>Frank
>
>
>Your math is fine.

Hi Bob,

good, for two years you say my math is bad, but in this case you have right (I
mean for two years) :-))

But your reasoning is wrong.  Which would you rather do:

>(1) play a match between two programs, using their strongest settings, and using
>two 700mhz processors;

>(2) play a match between two programs, using weaker settings on at least one, if
>not both, using two 1ghz processors?
>
>
>I vote for (1) because of using the strongest settings.  You are voting for (2)
>to avoid wasting compute cycles.  I think (1) is more important...

Yes, this is a good idea and a nice experiment.
I have an Dual Pentium III 733 MHz and an Dual Pentium III 1GHz.

But it is not 100%ig clear which test exactly!

What do you think about the following match idea:
Only with one CPUs to point 1-4.

01.
Crafty 18.10 on Dual Pentium III 733Mhz with ponder against Yace 0.99.50 on Dual
Pentium III 1.05GHz (the machine is running with FSB = 140) without ponder, 40
moves in 40 minutes, 50 games.

02.
Yace 0.99.50 on Dual Pentium III 733Mhz with ponder against Crafty 18.10 on Dual
Pentium III 1.05Ghz without ponder, 40 moves in 40 minutes, 50 games.

03.
The same match but Crafty 18.10 without ponder (1.05Ghz) and Yace 0.99.50
(1.05Ghz) without ponder, 50 games.

04.
After this matches, a new match Crafty 18.10 (1.05Ghz) with ponder - Yace
0.99.50 (1.05 Ghz) with ponder, 50 games.

In 2-3 months, after my CCE tourney I can make a test.
If you have a better idea please write.

I think 128 MB for hashtables, and 4pieces tablebases is good enough for the
experiment. Tablebases with 4Mb cache. No lean options in configuration files.

Best
Frank



This page took 0.05 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.