Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 07:13:54 03/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 05, 2004 at 09:54:12, Drexel,Michael wrote: Please test it yourself. I may hope SSDF doesn't test within the fritz GUI only, if so that would mean severe problems. Ponder = on and off is only nonsense winboard guys can come up with. Of course i only test myself with ponder on. I do not know about SSDF here. In diep there were so many problems with persons by accident turning off pondering, that diep *only* can play with ponder on. No way to turn it off. >On March 05, 2004 at 08:37:51, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On March 05, 2004 at 08:23:30, Albert Silver wrote: >> >>>On March 05, 2004 at 03:54:57, Afzal Siddique wrote: >>> >>>>Hello All, >>>> >>>>http://www.aceshardware.com/forum?read=105063596 >>>> >>>>Afzal >>> >>>I take it that this accusation can be substantiated? >>> >>>"DIEP is not at SSDF because i refused to pay them. it is a paid list. When you >>>do not ship them a computer or 2 (say $10000) you cannot join in that list in >>>such a way that they directly test your program. Instead they wait then till >>>there is newer books from other programs that can kill you. I refused to do >>>that. I would say now to Karlsson (head of the list) who asked me those 2 >>>computers: "You are a surgeon, you can pay for your own hardware"." >> >>When i asked a few years ago whether i could put diep at SSDF, >>Karlsson shipped me email that he could only garantuee diep to be quickly on the >>list if i would ship him a computer or 2. "As we are in big lack of hardware". I >>then heard from someone else he is a surgeon. >> >>>The following comment also needs a bit of clarifiying: >>> >>>"Further there gets used a lot of tricks in SSDF. The protocol to play other >>>programs has a 100 tricks in order to fool you. >>> >>>Example if you play single cpu with an UCI engine against fritz8 at a single >>>cpu, it will eat 80% system time on average versus your engine 20%." > >AFAIK the SSDF does not test on a single cpu ?! > >Furthermore your statement is complete nonsense. >UCI engines and Chessbase engines get always between 96% and 99% system time in >the recent Fritz GUI in matches with ponder OFF. > >Your statement is simply wrong for ponder on as well, but >results with ponder ON on a single cpu are not interesting anyway. > > >>All these tricks are there. Just try it yourself and measure. >> >>>The way it is phrased, one could easily end up thinking the SSDF actually uses >>>single CPUs to play the matches, as opposed to two separate computers. >> >>I'm sure they play basically single computer now. Either that can have 2 >>processors or 1. >> >>>I mean, you'd think that all UCI engines were immediately condemned, instead of >>>the no. 1 in the SSDF list actually being a UCI version of an engine as is the >>>case. >> >>Shredder interface has its own tricks. Sorry features. >>In general less than chessbase but he has little choice of course. >> >>I do not know how SSDF tests shredder, whether they use the native shredder book >>in shredderclassic or shredderbook in fritz + uci engine. >> >>In the latter game it would get toasted as it would get 1 MB hashtables. >> >>If not then chessbase has given order to not trick shredder with the 1MB trick. >> >>I did not test that latter. Perhaps some can try here. It's interesting to know >>the motivation and tricks applied by chessbase. I try to keep updated. >> > >Show me evidence that UCI engines get only 1 MB hashtables in engine matches. >The 1 MB hashtable problem definitely exists but I never saw it happen in >engine-engine matches. > >Michael > >>For now there is just too many tricks. And majority we cannot check even, >>because the games are not there. >> >>> Albert
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.