Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 03:29:21 08/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
>Hello Ed, Hello Frank, >>We (the programmers) can argue what we want Bob but this is a lost case >>on before hand because the formula of playing 2 programs on one machine >>is too good to be true. People are not going to give this up. > >>Same story as with book-learning, it hides the real strength of a chess >>engine. Still people take the numbers for real. Another lost case :-) > >I play more than 2000 games on one machine, looked in the LOG-File, see the >games and I can not say that this games the formula 2 is. > >You and Bob say that this the formula 2 is. I mean that permanent brain is not >importent for matches with longer time control. Its 20-40 ELO not more. 30% >Ponder hints pro match, and from this 30% 3% moves that are better and 1% >moves >that are not better with permanent brain (matches with longer time controls on >fast PCs). > >When I play with an fast processor and the engine come under tournament >time to >13/01 this engine come with an AMD K6-3 2000 MHz to 13/05 (I think). And with >ponder or not with ponder I become not (in der Regel, in german) an better >move. > >I can not see in the WinBoard debug files problems with time control without >ponder. > >This is not a formula 2, this is formula 1,5 with Schumacher in position 1 >:-))) >and Hyatt and Schröder in position 21/22 ! > >But a forumula 1,5 with good statistic and results. > >This is for me suspect, suspect we your statement about more ELO by using >Table-Bases. I think that 4-pieces make 20-30 ELO and 5-pieces make 40-50 ElO, >not 5 ELO ! > >Other programmer thinking we I and other programmer thinking in the question >about matches on one PC we I. > >I can give all logfiles from the WT-5 tournament and you can looking. >That´s no >proof of what you have been claiming, I will see an proof and I have this >proof >when I looked my results and in the log file form the WB Engines. > >OK, better are matches with 2 PCs, but for testing and playing with 2 >engines is >one PC enough and the results are interestet and good for all people that we >play tournaments. > >And when make Ed Schröder an Rebel Decade WinBoard Engine for more and more >WinBoard Fan`s ? > >Best wishes >Frank > >In german for Ed ! >Ist mir auf englisch zu kompliziert. > >Ed, stelle Dir mal folgende Frage ! > >Wenn bei einer Engine aufgrund Permanent Brain Treffer das Zeitmanagment >verändert wird und es zu Zügen kommt welche schneller ausgespielt werden >oder zu >Zügen welche langsamer ausgespielt werden hebt sich das wieder auf wenn vor >der >Zeitkontrolle doch wieder eine vernüftige Restzeit zur Verfügung steht. Mit >anderen Worten muß die Engine sich für Züge mehr Zeit gelassen haben und hat >dann auch Vorteile erzielt. Vorteile und Nachteile ! > >Crafty blitzt nicht die letzten Züge von der Zeitkontrolle (Matches auf >einen PC >ohne Ponder) und hat z.B. bei 40 Zügen in 40 Minuten immer noch >durchschnittlich >10 Minuten für die Züge 30-40 ! > >Daher verstehe ich die Äußerungen nicht, denn es gibt ja dann auch Vorteile. >Vorteile weil für Züge auch eine längere Zeit zur Verfügung steht. Das muß >doch >absolut logisch sein. Ich denke nicht das dies statistisch gesehen relevant >ist. > >Es sind keine zwei PCs mehr notwendig für Engine-Engine Vergleiche ! >Für 20-40 ELO ? Diesen Nachteil haben alle Programme ! > >Gruß >Frank I agree all programs have this problem but you overlook one important thing which is my main complaint to make engine-engine on one PC being trustworthy. Due to the lack of the permanent brain the "time control" (TC) gets messed up. TC is an important part of a chess program. Chess programs for instance are keen to keep a certain amount of spare time in case the program finds itself in trouble (dropping score etc.). Without a permanent brain this "spare time" case is going to fail as the permanent brain definitely is a part of it. This is just one example. I am sure that in every program TC is done in different ways as there are many things involved in TC. To compete in engine-engine on one PC the program needs a *special* TC that takes care of the lack of the permanent brain. Next the program needs a piece of smart software that automatically detects that it is forced to play without its permanent brain because it is unlikely the user has set the permanent brain to "off" for the match, right? The bottom line: program_X may have all done this and program_Y not. If so program_X will have a very big advantage. I estimate it at 50-100 elo. And how can you know that if it is done or not? I noticed this for the first time playing the Crafty-Rebel8 NPS game. Crafty and Rebel had to play without the permanent game to make the game valid for its purpose. Because the lack of the permanent brain Rebel8 came into time trouble because the program wasn't suited to play without. If Bob hadn't been so sportsmanlike to handle this manually I am sure the game and result would have been different. Ed Schroder
This page took 0.02 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.