Author: blass uri
Date: 06:51:05 06/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 1999 at 09:26:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 28, 1999 at 08:29:36, Francesco Di Tolla wrote: > >>>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. >> >>I'm sorry Bob, but I don't agree here. I think that if your program does this it >>is a "problem" of your program. Any program that supports a "ponder off" mode >>should also be able to play at maximum efficency within the time given. >> > > >Sorry but you are wrong. Should I spend 1/2 my time testing with ponder=off >to be sure that it works optimally? Or should I spend 100% of my time testing >in the way where the program plays the strongest? I think that you do not need to spend 1/2 of your time to test with ponder=off to be sure that it works optimally. I understand that the problem is that you assume that you can save time when you guess the opponent's move. You can simply decide to use x% of your regular time because you know that you cannot save time when the user can choose x. The user who are interested in engine-engine games can find by testing the the value of x that is close to be optimal. Uri
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.