Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:28:29 06/27/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 27, 1999 at 21:51:52, Mark Young wrote: >On June 27, 1999 at 21:15:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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. > >Why is this significant enough, is fritz like this, is junior like this, etc. Is >Hiarcs 7.32 like this. I am sorry I don't take one example and assume it applys >to all. > I didn't give you _one_ example. I gave you _two_. And without more information, the logical conclusion would be that 'ponder=off' probably adversely affects _all_ programs. Perhaps equally. Perhaps not. But if two have shortcomings, it is certainly not illogical to think others might also have problems. >If we want to use crafty as an example...You know my results using crafty on one >computer or two, or your computer. The results have been the same. > I don't have your data. But I have many _other_ games vs hiarcs 7 that I can supply. Or you can find them on ICC with the 'search' command. It all depends on how 'stable' crafty happens to be at the time the games are played. I lose a bunch. I win a bunch. I'm always working on it... > >> >>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 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.