Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 02:49:43 12/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 2001 at 00:11:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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 No, that was what I was saying. But that was what Jouni Uski was seeing. And you seemed to say "with ponder off, it _can_ lose on time", and now you're saying (like me) "even with ponder off, it cannot lose on time". I'm confused. > >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). Why do you have to hack xboard? Can't you just make an incremented game with 0 increment and 0:01 minute ? Works for me. /David
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.