Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 09:04:56 09/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 1999 at 03:33:52, Harald Faber wrote: >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. Feel free to stop yelling anytime. Dave
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.