Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 03:40:36 08/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 1999 at 02:27:40, blass uri wrote: >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 Wrong, Johan uses null-move. Ed >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.