Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:07:48 05/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 25, 2004 at 10:05:57, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 25, 2004 at 09:45:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 25, 2004 at 07:10:47, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >> >>>On May 25, 2004 at 06:41:31, paul bedrey wrote: >>> >>>>On May 25, 2004 at 02:07:19, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >>>> >>>>>We are planning to play a long amateur tournament >>>>>time control 90m+30s, ponder=off, using Wb2Uci.exe, >>>>>under Fritz8-GUI (or perhaps Arena-GUI) with >>>>>8 participants under the following conditions: >>>>> >>>>>- own book must be available for each engine >>>>>- access to EGTB possible >>>>>- no commercial version of the engines on the market >>>>>- only versions released for public (no change during tournament) >>>>> >>>>>and are now wondering which are the strongest engines we should/could >>>>>use in this long tournament over 70 rounds whereby two (2) programs may >>>>>not belong to the best ones provided they play a particular interesting >>>>>style. In this respect: we have already reserved a place for Gothmog 0.4.8. >>>>>Considering these conditions we see that no List, no Ktulu, no Ruffian >>>>>can participate. I am awaiting your suggestions for this tournament >>>>>possibly with explanations why engine X should be included. >>>>>Kurt >>>> >>>>Aristarch >>>>SOS >>>>Smarthink >>>>El Chinito >>>>Delfi >>>>Crafty >>>>Yace >>> >>> >>> Is is not said that there would be a great gap in >>> playing strength between Crafty using ponder=off >>> or ponder=on. Since our matches are always played >>> on single PC's with ponder=off, I fear to hear >>> complaints like "Crafty with ponder=off is not >>> a serious match". >>> Kurt >> >> >>Crafty was designed to play with ponder=on. That is the only way I test it. >>However, the ponder=off time allocation code _has_ been tweaked from time to >>time as people make suggestions. It is therefore better than it used to be >>under such a condition, but I doubt it is as well-tested... > >I do not think that other programs are better well tested in ponder off >conditions. > >I use most of my tests with ponder off but I do not test changing the time >management in ponder off conditions. > >I do not think that the programmers of other programs spent a lot of time in >testing changes in the time management in ponder off conditions. > >Uri I didn't suggest that was the case, either. I simply said _my_ ponder=off time management is not nearly as well tested as the ponder=on time management.
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.