Author: Robert Henry Durrett
Date: 09:23:34 06/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 20, 2002 at 11:49:46, Roy Eassa wrote: >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? I don't recall having ever been asked to not to do so. But, being the nice guy that I am, I would have quit doing it if asked to. Usually, my opponent was totally unaware of my presence. Truly, there may be a misconception about human tournament chess. The tournaments I participated in were populated by people who were "really into chess." People simply were so engrossed in their games that it would usually take quite a lot to distract them. Perhaps beginners who are not yet "really into chess" [and perhaps not sure they like tournament chess anyway] might be vulnerable, but I don't know that. Never met one in the tournaments I played in. One thing that can be distracting is eye contact. I always considered it to be in extremely bad taste to make eye contact with anyone playing in the tournament [except opponent]. Facial expressions would be outrageous bad conduct, too. Not to mention other gross misbehaviors, like kicking. I recall one occasion when my opponent got grossed out because I was picking my nose. Truly, I didn't realize I was doing it. I was too intent on finding my next move. He got quite bent out of shape. He couldn't concentrate on the game. When the number of observers gets to be many, then their presence is distracting. [They keep bumping into the chess table and players, and the snickering can be distracting.] To make this bulletin "on topic," I feel obligated to mention computer chess: "It would be difficult to unnerve a chess computer." There! Now we're on-topic. Bob D.
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.