Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:59:43 06/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2002 at 13:11:27, Peter Berger wrote: >On June 19, 2002 at 13:03:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>b) ponder=on can cause problems. Most of the time both engines will compute >>100% of the time. And get 50% of the cpu. But suppose one engine is not so >>sophisticated and fails (on occasion) to have anything to "ponder"? It will >>sit idle, giving the other program 100% of the cpu and a 2:1 time advantage >>for that search. >> > >This is the _major_ problem with ponder=on matches on single CPU IMHO . There >are several very strong engines that will have no ponder move quite regularly in >critical phases of the game (after fail-highs for example) - this looks like a >design decision. It looks like a rather principal problem for Ponder=On-matches >on a single CPU to me. > > >With time management and ponder=off - this looks like a lesser issue in >comparison IMHO ( for example for Crafty it was tested by Volker Pittlik and the >difference in strength wasn't measurable). This might be different for other >engines though. > >Peter > >Peter That is the problem. Crafty _always_ has something to ponder until it reaches a tablebase or forced mate. I don't suffer from that problem but I do suffer from poor time usage with ponder=off however...
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.