Author: Kurt Utzinger
Date: 03:50:43 03/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 15, 2004 at 05:34:36, Harald Faber wrote:
>On March 15, 2004 at 01:30:55, Kurt Utzinger wrote:
>
>>Hi John
>>Comparing the results:
>>CM9 vs Tao 5.6 (ponder=off) 13,5-6,5
>>CM9 vs Tao 5.6 (ponder=on) 15,0-5,0
>>we see (as usual) no significant difference as far as results are concerned
>>whether playing with ponder on/off and that's why I do no longer see any
>>reason to use two PC's for computer matches. True, the games are not the
>>same but this "disadvantage" is overcompensated by the fact that you can
>>play much more games with two computers. And in this way you have statistically
>>spoken more reliable results.
>>Kurt
>
>A) It is well-known that CM uses clearly more than 50% of the CPU. So when pb-on
>and pb-off do not make any difference in CPU usage of about 90% by theKing, I do
>not see why Tao could/should perform better with pb.
>
>B) Maybe Tao is not the right opponent -> much too weak IMO.
>
>C) Do you remember the good results of Ruffian without pb and the much worse
>results WITH pb? So pb does not play a role? I wish it would not, but it *does*.
>It is always best to have *physically seperated* systems so that none of the
>programs/engines absolutely has no influence on the other one which IS likely
>when they use the same CPU, RAM etc. I am amazed that you as experienced tester
>don't understand that.
Of course do I understand that. The point of my message was however
that - provided enough games are played - there is no significant
(if any) difference in results with ponder=off on one machine and
ponder=on on two machines with autoplayer. On the other hand, it is
well known that playing with ponder=on using the same CPU is nonsense.
Kurt
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.