Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 10:58:53 10/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 05, 1999 at 12:13:02, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On October 05, 1999 at 11:34:54, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On October 05, 1999 at 10:06:35, Bernhard Bauer wrote:
>>
>>>On October 05, 1999 at 09:47:29, Shep wrote:
>>>
>>>>On October 05, 1999 at 09:25:43, Wayne Lowrance wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On October 05, 1999 at 08:42:36, Bernhard Bauer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>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 !
>>>>
>>>>Actually, Christophe said Tiger should play equally well with PB off.
>>>>Of course it may be a different story with Fritz.
>>>>
>>>>---
>>>>Shep
>>>
>>>If a program plays equally well with PB=off as it plays with PB=on than I
>>>would conclude that PB=on is broken.
>>>Kind regards
>>>Bernhard
>>
>>
>>Of course not!
>>
>>Turning PB on helps if you have 2 computer and thus the programs can use their
>>CPUs during the opponent's thinking time.
>>
>>But for me it's very clear that if prog A beats prog B on 2 identical computers
>>with PB on, prog A will beat prog B on one computer with PB off.
>>
>>If you have a counter example, give proof of what you say. Give a reproducible
>>experiment we could conduct in order to support your argument.
>>
>>
>> Christophe
>
>
>Talk to Ed. He had this problem a year ago in a match we played. He identified
>the problem and explained it.
Both Ed and you could improve your programs on this issue.
If it is really a problem, which could be first measured...
> I had the same problem, which has to deal with
>allocating time. I _assume_ that I will save time later due to pondering, and
>I use this time early in the middlegame where things are complex. If I don't
>make that time up somewhere, I end up with less time than I would want near the
>time-control boundary.
>
>Also, see my earlier post in this thread. There are _lots_ of issues you are not
>considering, like tablebases, etc.... if pondering is turned on on two programs
>on the same machine.
>
>in short, either approach has problems and can skew results...
It would be interesting to check this, don't you think? I mean, if Crafty is
able to run Auto232 matches (sorry, I don't even know if it possible, I suppose
it is?), maybe one of the readers of CCC could run a Tiger-Crafty match with 2
identical computers with
1) PB on on BOTH
2) PB off on BOTH
I suppose 100 blitz games would be enough to measure the "PB off" problem in
Crafty? Then if you want to fix Crafty in this regard, I'm sure you would get
plenty of volunteers to test the new version...
Christophe
This page took 0.01 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.