Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:55:58 08/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 1999 at 11:15:52, blass uri wrote: >On August 29, 1999 at 10:42:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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... > > >I am interested to know how much do you gain in 2 computers from smart using of >time relative to the simple method of using the same time for every move. > >I guess that you cannot earn 50-100 elo only from smart using of time. > > > >Uri I would bet that if a program just uses a pure fixed time-per-move algorithm, it would be as much as 200 points weaker than a program that knows to (a) use more time when the score unexpectedly drops; (b) when the position is unstable; (c) when the position is more complicated, such as right out of opening book. It is easy to test, because I could take a couple of random logs and see how many times the score dropped by 2-3 pawns and extra time saved it. I'd bet it happens at _least_ once every game or two...
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.