Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:30:48 10/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 06, 1999 at 13:44:05, Ed Schröder wrote: >>Posted by Didzis Cirulis on October 06, 1999 at 06:58:16: >>I see one limitation in this, (correct me, if I miss something): >> >>If you play using Rebel Century on both PCs, there will be easy for PB to >>guess >>the next possible move as the same program is running as opponent. Maybe take >>another opponent (Hiarcs 7.32 etc) and play >> >>PC-1: Rebel Century PB=ON / TC 30 seconds >>PC-2: Hiarcs 7.32 PB=ON / TC 30 seconds >> >>and then, >> >>PC-1: Rebel Century PB=OFF / TC 60 seconds >>PC-2: Hiarcs 7.32 PB=ON / TC 30 seconds >> >>Didzis Cirulis > >True point indeed. > >On the other hand playing Rebel-Rebel means that opponents are 100% >equal regarding strength. > >Ed > >PS, sofar it's 6-3 in favor of the PB. I'm going to make a list of all the reasons why two programs, one computer, is a bad thing to do: 1. a program might not be well-adjusted in how it uses its time when it is not allowed to "ponder". Crafty is an example. 2. a program might not be well-behaved and do some unexpected computation after it sends the move to the referee program. IE in crafty, I send the move, then I do the learning stuff after 10 non-book moves have expired. This 'learning cycle' can take 2-3-4 seconds with a really large book and a long opening line in the book. Imagine what that does to a game/1minute time control that many are using in winboard/xboard? 3. a program (ie crafty) might do other things after it annouces its move, such as malloc()'ing a large buffer for (say) learning or whatever. What does a large malloc() do to the other program? swap it out? 4. A program (ie chessmaster) might poll for input, consuming 1/2 of the cpu even though it is not 'thinking'. There are _too_ many things a program _might_ do. I'll bet not one person gave any thought to a "learning cycle" in crafty, yet it does it in every game. And it steals 2-4 seconds of time from the opponent. In short time controls, that might be important. If I _know_ people are testing like this, I'll bet I can raise Crafty's rating by 100 points minimum. I won't say how, but it shouldn't take too much imagination to figure it out. :) And with that said, why bother testing in a way that is obviously potentially unreliable. For fun, sure. But reporting the results as "A beats B" is not very scientific... A might not actually be able to beat B, he just might have a smarter programmer that takes advantage of a flawed testing methodology... :) Bob
This page took 0.02 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.