Author: James Swafford
Date: 10:20:25 06/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2002 at 12:51:47, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On June 19, 2002 at 11:22:16, Kurt Utzinger wrote: > >>What do you think about >> >>1.) >>Playing engine-matches on a single CPU with ponder=on is nonsens? > >You need to make sure both engines get an equal share of the >CPU. If they do, it's fair. Can you guarantee that one process isn't getting more time than another? If two (chess program) processes are in a search at the same time, seems there will be a lot of context switching. And I don't think it's reasonable to assume most users will know enough about scheduling and so forth to ensure the processes are getting equal time. Several years ago I posted a series of games in which Tristram smashed Arasan. I really thought I had accomplished something. :) Jon gave me a courteous "you won't do as well against the next version" kind of statement, but didn't refute it. Then I realized Tristram, with ponder on, was stealing almost all the processor time from Arasan's search. :) Of course I publicly apologized to Jon, and was glad I was the one to figure this out. > >>2.) >>Playing engine-matches with ponder=off is in general nothing worth? > >No. If both engines are well tested and work well with both pondering >on and off, then the exact setting used wont make a difference. I'm glad you threw in the condition "work well with both..", but the truth is not all engines do work equally well with pondering off. Why should they? The results from such matches are misleading. -- James > >-- >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.