Author: Inmann Werner
Date: 15:45:05 08/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 1999 at 15:22:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 29, 1999 at 13:40:00, pete wrote: > >>On August 29, 1999 at 13:25:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On August 29, 1999 at 13:18:23, pete wrote: >>> >>>>1. ( I only post this one here , but it wasn't my idea ) >>>> >>>>If the time management suffers that much if either ponder=on or ponder=off why >>>>not add code that checks if ponder is enabled or not at the start of the game >>>>and adjust your time management ? I really like this idea . >>> >>> >>>But the question is, adjust it to _what_? Time management is non-trivial, and >>>most of us do a _lot_ of testing/tuning/tweaking with it before we are happy, >>>and some of us modify it on a regular basis as things show up. Who wants to >>>take time to play hundreds or thousands of games with pondering off, just to >>>get the new time allocation code properly tuned? When we really don't play like >>>this _ever_. I agree... >>> >><snip> >> >>I understand that _you_ wouldn't . But is this also true for the programmers of >>commercial progs who have to face the fact that many users ( even professional >>testers ) will test just like that and come to misleading conclusions ? >>For example Chessbase even advertises with results of that kind of matches . If >>I were a programmer for the Chessbase factory I sure would think about it. > > >Ed doesn't either. And I wouldn't be surprised if everyone else doesn't spend >a lot of time on ponder=off games either. It is simply 'unnatural' to run a >program that way... yes, for you, cause you let your program play on ICC. For me (in Europe) this is much to expensive. So I let my computer play during night under Winboard or Fritz Gui against other Engines to test it (games are better than positions). For Comp-Human play it might be "unnatural", but give me a person playing hundreds of matches against my program, or give me a set of computers, so I can use autoplay.... For the profis and commercials it may be "unnatural", but for me (and maybe some others?) it is better than nothing.... Werner > and most of us would rather spend time tuning the program >in the state it will play games, not in some crippled state that a user might >use to play games. IE do we also tune for (a) tiny transposition tables; (b) >no opening book; (c) no databases (endgame); (d) modified user parameter >settings; (e) any other random thing a user might try??? > >IE I do my testing in the configuration that plays the best/strongest. Not in >configurations that someone might use "just because it is there..."
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.