Author: blass uri
Date: 07:06:40 08/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 1999 at 06:29:21, Ed Schröder wrote: >>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 think it is clearly less than 50-100 elo. 50-100 elo difference is the difference between p200 and p90(see ssdf results). If I assume that you have 1.5 minutes per move instead of 3 minutes per move for moves 31-40 then you are 2 times slower only for 10 moves and faster for the first 30 moves so you lose clearly less than 50-100 elo. I estimate the difference is 20 elo if only one program is prepared to games without permanent brain Uri
This page took 0.01 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.