Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 04:12:46 08/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 1999 at 07:07:40, blass uri wrote: >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? Johan uses null-move in a different way than most other null-move programs. 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.