Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:15:23 06/27/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 27, 1999 at 19:46:43, Mark Young wrote: >On June 27, 1999 at 19:23:02, eric guttenberg wrote: > >>I can have Brett's opinion,too, and the evidence is abundant. In the last >>several weeks results of games between H7.32 and F5.32 on separate computers >>have consistently shown the two programs to be close or have shown F5.32 >>to be better at blitz games; at the same time engine v engine results >>have been posted over and over showing H7.32 to be almost 200 elo points >>better than F5.32 at various time controls, including blitz. This difference >>cannot be explained, except that engine v engine is a different animal than >>computer v computer. >> >>eric > >My results on one computer have not shown this. I see this type of stuff all the >time when some people post results by it on one computer or two. How knowns how >they test or if they are showing the real and accurate results. I can only say I >have seen nothing to say that you can not get accurate results with the >chessbase interface playing it on one computer. If the data was scewed in a big >way I would see it and it would not match up with my two computer results or >other reliable two computer results. I can only offer two data points. In Crafty, _my_ timing allocation code assumes that there will actually be more time to use than crafty has at the point it has to make the decision. Because I _know_ that I will correctly predict some moves here and there, and save that time. And do I want to wait until I save it before I use it, or should I use it in the part of the game where it is important, rather than taking 10 minutes per move in a simple endgame? The other data point was an old Rebel. Ed did all of his time setting while "permanent brain" was being used. When he turned it off in the NPS match he saw bad time allocation too. I don't know about others, but that is significant enough. Another point is that some programs (again, mine is an example) depends on fairly fast hardware, because of some of the search decisions I have made in the design process. Cut the speed by 1/2 and it might hurt me more than another program. Ask Thorsten about the Crafty vs CSTal match a couple of years ago. He was using p5/90's and Crafty was getting killed. When he went to something comparable to the P6/200, Crafty won way more than it lost. Your "ponder=off" type matches effectively cut the processor speed by 1/2, when you think about it. And the results can definitely be affected..
This page took 0.01 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.