Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:42:03 08/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 1999 at 10:06:40, blass uri wrote: >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 No... you are missing his point. playing without thinking on the opponent's time is 'unnatural' in that we don't test this way. At least most of us don't. So it is possible that program A has been tested/tuned so that it works fine without pondering, but program B might only be tested with it on. That is a big handicap to program B, and can skew the results far from what they would be on two machines... The problem is all about whether the program has been tested/tweaked to run well in that environment. It would probably be better to play on one machine using pondering instead of turning it off. And even that has problems...
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.