Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:37:37 12/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 2001 at 05:49:43, David Rasmussen wrote: >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 It means game in 1 minute and the test that Bob talked about was game in 1 second. Uri
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.