Author: Terry Ripple
Date: 01:28:04 08/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 02, 1999 at 15:08:49, Peter Kappler wrote: >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 ---------- Hi Peter, Mark Young claims that he played hundreds of games using both methods of a single computer and also using two computers to run a series of matches and that his results were very close in both cases! Regards,Terry
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.