Author: Roy Eassa
Date: 08:49:46 06/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 20, 2002 at 10:31:03, Robert Henry Durrett wrote: >On June 20, 2002 at 07:49:58, James Swafford wrote: > >>On June 20, 2002 at 03:46:47, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >> >>>On June 20, 2002 at 03:37:13, Tony Werten wrote: >>> >>>>On June 20, 2002 at 03:14:53, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >>>> >>>>>Personally spoken, I prefer matches with ponder=off. And this due to an >>>>>experiment made some years ago even played on_two_PC 486/86 with_two_programs at >>>>>level 120 min/40 moves. The first match over 20 games was played with ponder=on, >>>>>the second match [same openings] with ponder=off. And you will hardly believe >>>>>it, but in the match with ponder=off the overall average search depth per move >>>>>was higher than in the match with ponder=on. This seems to confirm what Dieter >>>>>Buerssner wrote on this subject. He said that he would prefer to do his private >>>>>tests with ponder=off as this method would use CPU time more efficiently because >>>>>the CPU cycles for pondering on wrong moves are not wasted. Maybe someone should >>>>>repeat such a test with the latest programs to have a good comparison between >>>>>the various programs. >>>> >>>>I don't think you need tests. >>>> >>>>Suppose we have 100 cycles to spend for 2 moves. ( 1 own, 1 ponder ) >>>> >>>>with pondering on: >>>> >>>>you get 25 cycles for the first move, 25 for the second. Assuming pondering is >>>>correct 75% of the time you get 25+(0.75*25)=43.75 cycles effectively. >>>> >>>>with pondering off: >>>> >>>>you get 50 cycles for the first move, 0 for the second=50 cycles effectively >>>> >>>>Tony >>>> >>>> >>>>>Kurt >>> >>>Most intersting answer. Assuming that pondering is correct less than 75 % which >>>in my opinion is more reliable, then I do not understand why a program should >>>ponder at all. >>>Kurt >> >>If you can make a good guess at your opponent's next move, and start thinking >>about your reply, you'll save a lot of time over the course of the game. >>Think about it - don't you play the same way over the board? You don't just >>sit and read a book until your opponent makes a move, do you? :) >> >>-- >>James > >There is another possibility. > >When playing in [human] tournaments, I made a habit of "putting on my opponent's >hat" when it was his turn to move. [I never(!!) played against a female >opponent. Never in my lifetime!] In fact, I often would get up out of my chair >and stand behind my opponent so that I could see the board from his side. I was >NOT trying to guess my opponent's next move. Instead, I was playing his side of >the board. In other words, I was finding "my" move, with me in his shoes. > >This procedure was extremely helpful to me. It gave me a whole new perspective >on the game. > >I'm unclear as to how that could be applied to computer chess, but if someone >could figure out how to do so, it might help to produce better chess for the >computer as it did for me. > >Bob D. Standing behind you opponent's chair during a tournament game may help your results for psychological reasons as well. It can be distracting or even unnerving to him (or her -- unlike you, I have faced a few female opponents in tournaments). Is it considered completely OK to do?
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.