Author: Lex Loep
Date: 12:27:19 12/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 1999 at 10:10:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 12, 1999 at 09:33:38, blass uri wrote: > >>On December 12, 1999 at 07:27:27, Lex Loep wrote: >> >>>On December 12, 1999 at 06:00:43, blass uri wrote: >>> >>>>On December 12, 1999 at 05:31:47, Lex Loep wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 12, 1999 at 03:23:18, blass uri wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On December 11, 1999 at 23:38:05, Chessfun wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>><<SNIP>> >>>>>>>I posted the previous score as being: >>>>>>>Record for shutka vs. chesspartner: >>>>>>> wins losses draws >>>>>>> rated 60 29 0 >>>>>>> unrated 0 0 0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Current is now: >>>>>>>Record for shutka vs. chesspartner: >>>>>>> wins losses draws >>>>>>> rated 61 30 0 >>>>>>> unrated 0 0 0 >>>>>> >>>>>>I am surprised to see this result mainly because of the fact that they are no >>>>>>draws. >>>>>> >>>>>>Is it possible that shutka repeats the same game again and again when >>>>>>chesstiger cannot use learning because of the fact that it is out of book after >>>>>>one or two moves(taking advantage of the fact that tiger has no learning by >>>>>>position)? >>>>>> >>>>>>I am interested to see the games because it seems impossible to do it in fast >>>>>>time control without this idea. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Here are the last two games, they have been played with the anti-human option >>>>>on. >>>>>First game was lost by tiger on time, tiger was clearly ahead. >>>> >>>>I do not understand the reason that tiger is losing on time. >>>>It should never happen to computers. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>Without a increment the computer has a disadvantage, as human just make sure >>>you always have a few seconds extra time, eventually the computer runs out of >>>time, unless you get checkmated first. >> >>I disagree because I know that crafty never lose on time with games with no >>increasment. >> >> There are all kinds of delays before >>>engine gets a chance to calculates it's move. This may be as much as half a >>>second per move. >> >>I do not understand it. >>I thought that the delay is 0 seconds >> >>If there is a delay of .5 seconds for move before calculating then humans has >>unfair advanatge because they sometime play faster than 0.5 second per move. >> >>Uri >>Uri > > >all of this is programming problems. The _only_ delay is between the engine >and the interface, assuming the interface is using timeseal. Timeseal repairs >the delay from interface to server and back. However, the engine and interface >are two programs that communicate via (typically) a pipe. Once the interface >gets the move from the server, the time starts. It is now up to the program >to read the input, act on it, and produce a move. Remember, "crafty" is 10 >years 'behind' the commercial programs, so I see no point in telling them how >to fix such problems. :) > >But they _can_ be fixed. Crafty can play a 60 move game in one second if you >want to see something _really_ fast.. :) > >Bob Except in this setup the engine runs at idle priority at a relatively slow pc, so al the GUI updates are handled before engine get a chance at it. Plus anything else that might be going on. The PC is used as mailserver/domain controller, internet gateway etc. I have not actually messured the 1/2 second delay but this is my estimate. But with 90 moves in 180 seconds it is significant. I have looked at some other games of shutka against tiger, it's al the same shutka plays very fast, tiger gets some won position around move 60 then looses on time. To me it looks meaningless, if I just give tiger engough CPU time the shutka guy is nowhere ! Lex
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.