Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:17:39 10/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 05, 1999 at 13:58:53, Christophe Theron wrote: >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 I don't consider it as "needing fixing". Crafty won't run on a washing machine computer either. It could. But it wasn't a plan of mine to do so. Running in a crippled mode is something some like to do. But I don't plan on wasting time trying to tune everything so that it works well in a mode I won't _ever_ use in any serious games...
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.