Author: Andrew Dados
Date: 11:32:13 08/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 1999 at 13:52:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 29, 1999 at 12:22:58, Frank Quisinsky wrote: > >> >>I think this is all correct, but Robert ... >>When the engine correct play on one PC without ponder (engine-engine) why is >>ponder 50-100 ELO. >> > >I don't know what you mean there. I didn't say anything about 50-100 elo, >although I believe that is accurate. > > > >>example ... >> >>Crafty thinking for move 28 in the game >>02:58 13/02 move Ka1 without ponder >>02:20 13/04 move Ka1 with ponder > >that makes no sense. pondering saved 38 seconds? It should save more like >2 minutes there. > > > > >> >>In move 29 in this game >>04:45 11/04 move Ka2 without ponder >>05:38 11/05 move Ka2 with ponder > > >ditto... it depends on how long the opponent thinks _after_ crafty >starts pondering... If it thinks for the normal amount of time, crafty >gets that much think-time _free_. And I've _never_ seen the prediction >rate below 50% against a computer, more commonly it is well above 50%. >The log file will show how many moves it correctly predicted, which will >tell how many times it could potentially save time. > >But you are totally missing the point Ed raised and I seconded: if one >program has been tested and tuned for ponder=off play, and the other has >not, then that program has a significant advantage. Tough luck, you say? >Of course... but then your results don't have anything to do with how the >two programs would perform on separate machines. > >That is why we keep saying "don't run games on one computer... the results >are not always as meaningful as you might assume..." > > > >> >>This is 50-100 ELO ? >> >>Robert 30% ponder hints in the game ! >> >>OK, 100 moves, in this 100 moves 30 ponder hints >>And how many other moves play Crafty from this 30 ponder hints ? >> >>I think 2-5 moves, OK 5 moves but 2 from 5 moves are = or not better ! >> >>But in 0:30 second without ponder Crafty play not blunders ! >>In 0:45 second Crafty can found an better move ! >> >>Is this for the statistic relevat when I play 500 Crafty games without ponder ? >> >>Robert, for 4 years we play with an 486/66. Is this system bad for you ? >>What is better Robert, games on this 486/66 with ponder or an game on an AMD >>K6-3 450 without ponder ? I think Crafty play stronger on an AMD K6-3 450 >>without ponder, or ? >> >>Today you play on an Penitum III 500 Dual (I think). In four years you play on >>an Pentium V 3000 MHz ! And then ? Is then ponder importent for you and the >>games from the DUAL Pentium III are bad ? > >you are missing the point. my time allocation _depends_ on saving time by >pondering. You are not allowing it to do that. Which is the problem with >this... nobody would argue that _all_ engines are 50-100 elo stronger with >ponder=on than they are with ponder=off. That is easily testable on a chess >server. But the issue here is whether a program is tested with ponder=off or >not. Mine isn't. Ed's isn't. > > >> >>I mean you can play without ponder with an AMD K6-3 450 and have the power from >>an AMD K6-3 350-400 MHz, 20-40 ELO that is it ! > > >generally 2x faster is 70 Elo better. Pondering has the potential to make >a program act like it is twice as fast... > > > >> >>>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... >> >>Yes I understand this and I understand you entry about ponder and time control >>but I can not see 50-100 ELO or I am chess blind ! >> >>It`s an good example from Ed with forumla 1 and 2. I think forumla 2 (that is >>right) with Schumacher in position 1 with full power and not Schumacher with an >>defect. And Schumacher win this finish in forumla 1 and in formula 2 ! >> >>The car´s run in forumla 1 with 300 km/h and in forumla 2 with 260 km/h ! >> >>Kind regards >>Frank > >But suppose you take his car, and suddenly make him run with rain tires when he >hasn't in the past. How do you think he'd do then? No testing? He'd be pretty >unlikely to even finish the race. This is a common NASCAR problem in the USA. >There are many good rain tires, and some NASCAR races are on wet tracks. But >the drivers don't use the rain tires because to quote one this week "It would >be on-the-job-training, because we can't have rain when we need it to test..." > >That is the point with chess. You are testing the programs in a mode where _we_ >don't test them. Poor performance is not unexpected... Byt you 'can have rain when you need it to test' here. And I would bet some 90% matches between engines were/are/will be done on one-cpu computer. Just because that's what most people have at home (and if they have two - then usually they are of different CPUs). And I bet few chessplayers test their opening lines by playing engine-engine from a given position, too. Maybe it's worth considering adjusting time management to work in that mode then. Or keep repeating same arguments every once in a while... but that will not make people go out to the store and buy second same machine (or dual), I bet. -Regards- Andrew
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.