Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 16:11:51 06/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 2004 at 18:37:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 01, 2004 at 18:31:48, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On June 01, 2004 at 18:16:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On June 01, 2004 at 17:55:14, Sune Fischer wrote: >>> >>>>On June 01, 2004 at 13:56:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 01, 2004 at 12:03:44, Sune Fischer wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On June 01, 2004 at 11:52:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>As for pondering you obviously can't play with ponder on at a uni-processor, so >>>>>>>>I don't see how that can come as a surprise. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I do it all the time with no problems whatsoever. So what if each program gets >>>>>>>1/2 of the processor? >>>>>> >>>>>>1/2 cpu, exactly, would be no problem. >>>>>>But what if one engine decides to "ponder" with 10 threads, or if the threads >>>>>>don't run at the same priority? >>>>>> >>>>>>What if one engine decides to skip pondering for one move, then the other gets >>>>>>100%. That's double punishment. >>>>> >>>>>That's a stupid engine, too. :) >>>> >>>>So? >>>>No reason to punish it twice, that just forces everyone to do stupid hacks to >>>>keep them at full load. >>>> >>>>There are other issues as well, ie. if one engine starts hitting TBs heavily, >>>>how does that influence cpu load between the programs? >>>> >>>>What about trashing the cache? >>>>Author of engine X has spend many hours fine tuning his memory footprint to fix >>>>exactly into the 256 kb. Running a second program completely cripples his >>>>engine, he claims, this was _not_ what it was designed for. >>>> >>>>-S. >>> >>> >>>That is why testing on _one_ computer is generally wrong. :) >> >>What's wrong with it if you turn pondering off? >> >>-S. > > >Perhaps an engine is not well tested in that mode? Good argument, but what if I reverse and say some engines might not be well tested with ponder on? You can't play a fair tournament that makes everybody happy. As for pondering in particular, the protocol specificly has easy and hard commands to turn pondering on and off. Thus any xboard compliant engine should know how to play it both ways, if some engines don't then it can simply be considered a weakness, IMO. >IMHO an engine should be tested "as is". What if two engines have conflicting "as is" settings? Would playing an aggressive learner against a non-learner be an interesting experiment at all? > If you want to twiddle with a new >"personality" then that is fine. Everyone is doing that but they are making it >clear that things are far from "normal" by naming the personality they are >creating, to make it distinct from the default personality. They are making it clear, everyone AFAICT remembers to post the tournament conditions. But by all means, let the record show that the author of Crafty feels the program is heavily weakened when using ponder off and learning off. There, happy now? :) -S.
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.