Author: blass uri
Date: 13:07:36 07/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 06, 1999 at 15:19:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 06, 1999 at 15:00:15, blass uri wrote: > >> >>On July 06, 1999 at 13:17:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On July 04, 1999 at 17:29:35, blass uri wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>On July 04, 1999 at 17:12:02, Bo Persson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Not quite. >>>>> >>>>>If you run under Windows, a program can behave badly and be a CPU hog. It can do >>>>>a number of "tricks", like increasing its own priority, to get more CPU time >>>>>from the system. >>>>> >>>>>This will be unfair to "the nice guy" who's program runs "properly" - share and >>>>>share alike. >>>> >>>>I do not suggest thinking and pondering at the same time. >>>>The only reason that the game is going to be twice longer is that instead of >>>>thinking and pondering at the same time I suggest to do it not at the same time >>>>so instead thinking and pondering for 2 minutes on the same time I need 4 >>>>minutes(2 for one engine to think and 2 for the second engine to ponder without >>>>knowing the move of the first engine) >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>I've explained this several times. "ponder=off" (crafty terminology) is _not_ >>>the way to play engine vs engine games. I do _all_ of my testing with >>>ponder=on, and only use ponder=off for test suites and debugging. My time >>>allocation code is tuned to run with ponder=on. Running with it off will >>>most definitely cause some timing difficulties that are not normally seen. >>> >>>I'd bet that if you ask, most programmers test with ponder=on and feel very >>>comfortable with their code. But if you ask them to play a serious tournament >>>with ponder=off, I'd bet you would see a _lot_ of testing going on to make sure >>>that this doesn't break anything. >>> >>>For _my_ program, "out-of-the-box" is the best way to run it, other than >>>customizing hash table size for your specific hardware. Everything else is >>>_exactly_ as I run it on ICC, which means that the 'defaults' are the best that >>>I know how to do... >>> >>>Changing anything will very likely weaken it. Perhaps significantly... >> >>I explained that there is no problem to do something eqvivalent to ponder=on in >>1 computer. >>The only difference is that the games will be longer because the actions are >>going to be not in the same time instead of the same time. >> >>Uri > > >Uri: > >listen _carefully_. If you run a program with pondering disabled, it will >_screw up_ things. It doesn't matter whether you double the time control or >not. The program has to be told about the extra time. I did not suggest to disable pondering but to do something that leads to the same results as pondering in one computer. I agree that chessbase does not do it. It is simple to do it in one computer by the following steps We start with step 1 when A is out of book. step 1: Engine A "thinks" about a reply to engine B and does the move. step 2: Engine B gets the following information:Engine A played a move and used x seconds for the move(Engine B does not get the move of Engine A). Engine B ponder for x seconds and only after x seconds get the information about the move of Engine A(The time per game for Engine B does not change during these x seconds). steps 3,4 are similiar to steps 1,2 The deatails of these steps: step 3: Engine B "thinks" about the reply to Engine A and does a move ( now the time per game for engine B is changed) step 4: Engine A gets the following information:Engine B played a move and used y seconds for the move(Engine A does not get the move of Engine B). Engine A ponder for y seconds and only after y seconds get the information about the move of Engine B(The time per game for Engine A does not change during these y seconds). step n+4 can be described by the same words as step n. 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.