Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 12:08:49 08/02/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 02, 1999 at 09:09:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 02, 1999 at 04:11:24, Tania Devora wrote: > >> >> >>Hi! I made another tournament between the Super Strong Hiarcs 7.32 and Doctor3.0 >>Poor Doctor! Hiarcs won by the incredible 18-2! >>Only 4 draws, the rest is Hiarcs victories. >> >>Machine used : K6-II 350 Mhz with 128 ram, 44 MB for each program, >>Time used is : G\30 Semi Blitz. >> >> >>Enjoy the games! >> >>And give me your opinion about the games! >> >>Thanks! >> > >Why continue to post flawed games? (two programs on one computer). IE >this is about as valid as doing bacterial cultures outdoors on a city street. >Interesting, but not valid. > > >computer testing using only one computer is simply worthless. Except for >debugging... > Bob, I don't understand how single computer testing can be "simply worthless". As long as both engines don't ponder, I think you should get results that are similar to 2-computer testing. I've heard the discussions about how not being able to ponder can slightly affect a program's time management, but I can't believe that this can completely invalidate the result of a long match. Even if there are some small side-effects from single-computer tesing, the impact should be roughly the same for both engines, right? Maybe somebody with 2 machines and some spare time could run a long match with both configurations and help to shed some light on this issue? --Peter
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.