Author: Mark Young
Date: 17:26:48 06/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 1999 at 09:40:02, blass uri wrote: > >On June 28, 1999 at 09:22:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 28, 1999 at 07:52:15, blass uri wrote: >> >>> >>>On June 28, 1999 at 02:35:31, Ed Schröder wrote: >>> >>> >>>>The main problem of these engine-engine matches on one Pc is that >>>>because the lack of the permanent brain the time control rules of the >>>>program in question is not in harmony anymore which may result in >>>>very bad play. >>>> >>>>Playing without permanent brain requires *another* set of rules for >>>>time control. Programs who play engine-engine matches on one >>>>Pc (a) should realize it is playing such a match and then (b) use a >>>>totally different (and well tuned) time control. >>>> >>>>The big question is if these engines are aware of this. If engine_X >>>>knows and engine_Y does not know then engine_X has a big >>>>advantage (50-100 elo?!) and results are meaningless in the >>>>sense that results can completely different if you run them on >>>>2 Pc's (which remains the only accurate way BTW). >>> >>>I am surprised by the 50-100 elo difference. >>>I think that the ssdf results show that the difference between pentium200 and >>>pentium90 is in this range. >>> >>>I think that not using the permanent brain may cause problem only in the moves >>>that are close to the time control(If I suppose 2 hours/40 moves) and the >>>results are similiar to the case that instead of playing all the game on >>>pentium200 you play the first moves on slightly better hardware and the last 10 >>>moves on pentium 100. >>> >>>I expect a difference of 20-40 elo and not 50-100 rating in this case. >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>This just isn't the way it works. And the reason is that no one tests like >>this. (programmers). Any more than we test with no hash tables (or way too >>small hash tables) or any other 'crippled' mode. >> >>The way to play is to play the way the programs were tested and developed. >>Just because something 'works' doesn't mean that it 'works well'... > >I agree it is not perfect but the way I test the new version of Junior is in >engine-engine games and I tell Amir Ban about the games and what are the >problems of Junior. >I am sure that he learns from these games. > >I have not 2 computers with the same speed. > >I do not think that it is exactly the same as computer-computer games but I do >not think that there is a big difference. I agree it is not exactly the same, but I find no big difference, and this is not an opinion, but based on my one computer games and my two computer games. To be clear I am only talking about the major programs that run in chessbase. This is the only data I can talk about. For me running on one computer is better then running on two as long as the results are sound, and I have found they are. I could run on two computers, but I can not run near 24 hours a day with two because of my work. So testing in chessbase against the other major chessbase engines is a time saver when I plain to run 50 games against each program. > >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.