Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:10:31 10/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 05, 1999 at 11:28:10, Christophe Theron wrote: >On October 05, 1999 at 10:59:56, blass uri wrote: > >>On October 05, 1999 at 09:25:43, Wayne Lowrance wrote: >> >>>On October 05, 1999 at 08:42:36, Bernhard Bauer wrote: >>> >>>>On October 05, 1999 at 07:38:57, Shep wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 05, 1999 at 07:26:32, Steve McRiley wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On October 05, 1999 at 04:35:21, Didzis Cirulis wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On October 05, 1999 at 02:45:16, Howard Exner wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>What is the hardware used and the time control? Thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>As usually ;-) 200MMX, 16MB for each program, PB off, 1hour/game (means one hour >>>>>>>for each program), careful calculations of CPU usage. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Didzis Cirulis >>>>>> >>>>>>You mean you do this on one computer?? >>>>> >>>>>Hmm, do we really have to start this all over again? ;-( >>>>> >>>>>Actually, it is not necessarily bad to play on a single machine. >>>>>For one, programs like Fritz and Tiger are very well suited for this as they >>>>>don't hog CPU time when sitting idle. >>>>>Secondly, there is no relevant evidence yet that the time management problems >>>>>caused by "PB off" actually have a significant impact on the outcome - >>>>>at least not more than the good old statistical problems of playing a series of >>>>>less than 1000 games... ;-) >>>>> >>>>>--- >>>>>Shep >>>> >>>>As Fritz and Tiger are designed to be used with PB=on any results with BP=off >>>>are questionable since they do not reflect the true program strengt. >>>> >>>>Kind regards >>>>Bernhard >>> >>>I agree with that. I just cannot get interested in matches played on one comp. >>>If the author of both programs would come out and say it makes no difference >>>that would be another story. However I know Bob Hyatt has said so many times it >>>affects Crafty ! >>>Wayne >> >>I do not agree. >> >>I think the difference between the result with playing in one comp and >>playing in 2 computers is minor(The difference in rating is probably not more >>than 20 elo). >> >>Uri > > >You are completely right, Uri. > > > Christophe He may be right for your program. He _definitely_ isn't right for mine. It does screw up time allocation. Because I _plan_ on making a few moves in zero time due to pondering, and use this time early when it is needed. With no pondering, I won't get it. Better (in my case) to play with pondering on on both engines. This won't ever hurt crafty, but will possibly influence the outcome of games. Ie in endings where crafty has tablebases, it can use less than 100% of the CPU when probing. That gives the opponent a 'faster' machine at that point. Also, if the opponent has no move to ponder (due to a fail high) then Crafty will get 100% of the machine. And Crafty will _never_ not have a move to ponder because if it doesn't it will first search for one (puzzle search) and then ponder that. So either way, the results from 1 machine won't necessarily match the results on two machines. It ought to be avoided, regardless of popular opinion. There _are_ problems in doing this... the above are just a few of them...
This page took 0.03 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.