Author: blass uri
Date: 04:07:40 08/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 1999 at 06:40:36, Ed Schröder wrote: >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 I remember that chessmaster could solve a position that Null movers failed to solve so I guessed it is not a null mover. Are there examples when chessmaster cannot see mate in 2 because of a null move problem? 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.