Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 21:08:13 10/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 06, 1999 at 23:01:13, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On October 06, 1999 at 19:24:22, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On October 06, 1999 at 18:44:51, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On October 06, 1999 at 17:36:43, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>
>>>>On October 06, 1999 at 16:38:48, blass uri wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On October 06, 1999 at 15:30:48, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><snipped>
>>>>>>4. A program (ie chessmaster) might poll for input, consuming 1/2 of the cpu
>>>>>>even though it is not 'thinking'.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is easy to check and if the testers are intelligent they will not let it.
>>>>>
>>>>>I remember from previous posts some monthes ago that it is not a problem in
>>>>>Didzis Cirulis's games because he gives the opponents of chessmaster more time
>>>>>becuase of this problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>As far as I know only CM has this problem.
>>>>
>>>>Didzis has found a way to avoid it: after CM moves, it is enough to open a pull
>>>>down menu to stop CM's polling input.
>>>>
>>>>This has been carefully verified, and it works.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Christophe
>>>
>>>
>>>Don't you think that is a problem? IE the pull-down is _always_ done instantly?
>>>Never forgotten? I have played lots of manual games over the years. I have
>>>missed an opponent's move from time to time... I can only imagine how easy it
>>>is to bump the mouse and dismiss the pull-down without realizing after a long
>>>game...
>>
>>Never unplugged your computer by accident?
>>
>>Never had a power failure?
>>
>>In this case your PB was spoiled!
>>
>>Damned! :)
>>
>>
>> Christophe
>
>
>I'm just trying to point out how many difficulties there are in one-computer
>testing. I have always been a scientist, and like 'controlled experiments'. I
>don't want to fall into the 'cold fusion' trap and look like an idiot. As a
>result, I try to be _certain_ that any experiment I run has exactly one degree
>of freedom, not two, or three, or an unknown number. Because that wrecks the
>accuracy and reliability of the experiment being done.
Of course.
>In one computer testing there is no way to be sure that A doesn't interfere
>with B, even though A is not 'pondering'. Fast games make it even worse. But
>any such testing can produce different results than normal two-computer testing.
There could be problem as "the opponent does some computation just after his
move" or such, but you could trust the testers a little bit more. They are able
to detect this and
* either to find a way to avoid it
* or to not play single computer matches with this program.
Also, in the case of DOS programs, there is NO problem. You can set a propertiy
of the DOS boxes under Windows, so they are completely frozen as soon as they
are not in the foreground anymore. When you press Alt-Tab to switch to the other
program, it is guaranteed that the first one receives 0% of the CPU usage.
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.