Author: Harald Faber
Date: 00:33:52 09/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 02, 1999 at 12:09:05, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On September 02, 1999 at 04:35:53, Harald Faber wrote: > >>On September 01, 1999 at 23:40:33, Dave Gomboc wrote: >> >>>>>>>>AMD-K6-200, most out of 64MB RAM, 3min/move. >>>>> >>>>>>EXACTLY 3min/move EACH. >>>>> >>>>>What is the sense to give them 3 moves each exactly ??? >>>>>CSTal plays weaker in this time-control than in 40/120. >>>>>so you weaken it. >>>> >>>>Yes, but the other programs had the EXACT same limitation. Obviously, if this >>>>configuration weakens CSTal (as it should), it will also weaken it's competitors >>>>(as it should). The test is still valid. It's just a different type of test AND >>>>people have to take it for what it is and not try to make any other assumptions >>>>about it. One cannot assume from a test like this that CSTal is weaker than >>>>these particular opponents if permanent brain is turn on and/or the program >>>>decides when how much time to spend on each move (which I believe is an >>>>assumption Harald has made) because it lost games where these features were >>>>turned off. >>> >>>Time management has become relatively important. I'm not sure how much penalty >>>there is to using a naive time management implementation than a sophisticated >>>one. It would be interesting to hear the opinion of commercial developers on >>>this. My guess would be 20+ elo. It has been suggested that much work has gone >>>into CSTal's time management code, so I sympathize with Thorsten's point of view >>>here. >>> >>>I think it's best to test with a time control of n moves in x minutes, on two >>>machines, with pondering on, where n should be significantly more than 1. :-) >> >> >> >>Sure. But it doesn't change or lower the fact that BOTH PROGRAMS HAD THE SAME >>CONDITIONS. PERIOD. > >People play games with both engines having "ponder=off". It's still not very >good. Whether both programs have the same conditions is not the only >constraint. The conditions must also be reasonable! A time control of "for >each move, take _exactly_ x minutes" defeats the entire purpose of >time-management software logic. > >Dave AGAIN: AS BOTH PROGRAMS SUFFER FROM THE TIME CONTROL, THERE ARE STILL EQUAL CONDITIONS. I NEVER CLAIMED THIS REPRODUCES THE SAME RESULTS AS TOURNAMENT CONTROL WOULD. I GUESS the results will be very close as the time control of 3min/move is close to tournament time control.
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.