Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:11:31 12/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 20, 2001 at 17:57:35, David Rasmussen wrote: >On December 20, 2001 at 14:44:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >> >>Because it _assumes_ it will save time here and there by "pondering" correctly >>and it adjusts the time target for each move based on this assumption. But >>the assumption is _wrong_ since it isn't pondering at all. The time allocation >>for ponder=off simply needs more tuning. But I don't _ever_ play serious games >>with ponder=off so I never test or tune for that... > >I can understand that you get bad time allocation, without pondering, that is, >too much time is used on a move, or not enough, but to actually lose on time, is >another matter. But I see your point. > >/David I can't see how crafty can _ever_ lose on time. At least under an O/S with an accurate elapsed timer (to the nearest .01 seconds or whatever) and with reasonable task switching to handle the context switching between Crafty and the xboard gui. I have not lost _any_ games on time under unix-based systems. I have not seen Crafty lose _any_ games on time running under NT or 2000 either. But other systems like win95/98/me _do_ have problems... My "stress test" for unix is to play "game in 1 second" games. (you have to hack xboard to support this, or else you can try game in 1 minute which is also a tough test).
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.