Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 09:20:37 09/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 26, 2002 at 08:07:00, Volker Pittlik wrote: >On September 26, 2002 at 07:40:26, Harald Faber wrote: > >... >>So the programmers should consider playing without permanent brain, this should >>reduce the chances of hash collisions etc. And it does not weaken the engine. >>Only pros, no cons, think about it. :-) > >Weakening the engine by setting ponder off and playing tournaments where all >opponents use ponder=on or ponder=off are two complete different circumstances. > >The test tried to analyse if results of tournaments with different settings are >comparable. No word about both settings are playing at equal strengths. > >How long will it take until the last will stop to cunfuse this issues? > >Volker the ponder issue depends on the ENGINE. different engines, different ponder efficiency. Also it depends on the opponent. If the opponent plays weird , the ponder efficiency reduces. you cannot TEST it with ONE engine, or with ONE opponent and say it makes no sense. Professional chess programs have IMO a bigger ponder efficiency. So here we have another problem. And strong engines do more often ponder accurate than weak engines.
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.