Author: blass uri
Date: 23:27:40 08/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 1999 at 02:26:34, blass uri wrote: >On August 29, 1999 at 21:20:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 29, 1999 at 18:17:13, Mogens Larsen wrote: >> >>>On August 29, 1999 at 15:22:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>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... 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..." >>> >>>I've been following the discussion with great interest and I have a couple of >>>questions, mostly due to ignorance. >>> >>>If you play an engine-engine match on one computer with permanent brain on and a >>>match with permanent brain off. What match would most likely be the best >>>estimate of the difference in strength? What are the complications with >>>permanent brain? Some suggest that it's the same for both, but there might be a >>>difference prioritywise concerning processortime, or? >>> >>>Best wishes... >>>Mogens >> >> >>Neither, unfortunately. Here's why. >> >>Assume one null-move program and one non-null-move program. If you use ponder >>mode, both will get 1/2 the machine basically. Which means that in essence, >>the programs will be running on machines 1/2 the speed of the computer you are >>using. That hurts a null-mover more, because reduced depth allows some critical >>null-move failures that deeper depths 'fix'. So there, you get skewed results. > >I do not think that there is a rule that null movers earn more from time >relative to non null movers and it may be depend in the program. >I have no proof that Junior earn less from time relative to Null movers. The same for chessmaster theat is not a null mover Uri
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.