Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 21:40:23 10/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 05, 1999 at 22:30:15, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On October 05, 1999 at 22:03:23, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On October 05, 1999 at 16:17:39, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On October 05, 1999 at 13:58:53, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>
>>(snip)
>>>>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...
>>
>>
>>Running on "crippled" computers has helped me a lot to improve Chess Tiger this
>>summer. I have done a lot of testing on a 386dx20 computer in August and
>>discovered a selective algorithm I have just added in Chess Tiger 12.0. Ask Shep
>>about the speed improvement he has just noticed in the new version of Tiger.
>>
>>Don't worry, with your state of mind, I think you are very well protected
>>against this kind of discovery.
>
>
>I don't know why the discussion has to 'turn ugly'...
Probably because you feel like you are allowed to make rock statements like
"Testing on _one_ machine is a bad practice, period."
and that you do that everytime you post here, as if you were the ultimate expert
here.
> but I'm up to the task.
I know.
>If it takes a 'crippled' machine for you to find new algorithms or find old
>bugs, fine. I have a better testing methodology. Because such testing is not
>exactly a modern approach to developing software. It is just as easy to cut the
>search time by 90% rather than finding a machine 1/10th the speed. Exactly the
>same result...
No.
I'm using the standard PC timer resolution, which is about 0.05 seconds, to make
time measurements in my program.
My K6-300 is about 100 times faster than my 386sx20. And I wanted, for some
purpose, to play blitz games at 386sx20 rate.
To get on the K6 the same time per move, I should have set it to game in 3
seconds, which makes something like 0.05 seconds per move in average. This is
too close from the PC timer resolution, so I had to test on 386.
The purpose of the test was to check if my pruning near the horizon was as good
as the pruning of very old programs (Psion and Genius to name them). It was not,
and if I had no 386 at hand I would probably have overlooked it.
I would not run on a 386 all day, but in this case it helped.
>>As for "will it be useful in serious games", keep an eye on the results of Tiger
>>and you will know.
>>
>>Thanks for your time and patience, Doctor Hyatt.
>>
>>
>>
>> Christophe
>
>
>I'll bet you a buck that your testing with ponder=off won't help you one iota
>in "real" games... Because you won't be playing with ponder=off in "real"
>games, just like the rest of us..
I *never* play real games, except when I operate Tiger at a tournament (or the
day before to be sure that playing real games still works).
I have *never* played a long time control game (40 moves in 2 hours) in my "lab"
since more than 5 years.
The last time I played a game in 1 hour in the lab was 2 years ago. 2 games
against CM4000, I remember.
99% of the games I play with Tiger are on a single computer (switching back and
forth between the 2 programs under Windows), and of course PB off.
So if testing with PB off does not help me, I guess you can deduce I have made
no progress since more than 5 years.
Christophe
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.