Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 22:26:50 07/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 28, 2001 at 01:12:41, Terry McCracken wrote: >On July 27, 2001 at 18:58:30, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On July 27, 2001 at 18:44:45, Roy Eassa wrote: >> >>>On July 27, 2001 at 16:55:55, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On July 27, 2001 at 16:51:08, Roy Eassa wrote: >>>> >>>>>Be careful, Dann. Dr. Hyatt has argued strongly that ponder should always be >>>>>on, even with a single CPU. (It seemed counter-intuitive to me too, but you >>>>>should check out his recent postings -- over the past couple days, I think.) >>>> >>>>Not when both engines play on the same machine. > > >>>>No way. >>> >>> >>>Yes way! I reacted the same way (in my head), but I respect Dr. Hyatt and his >>>arguments are worth reading at least! >> >>If you run two engines which are both pondering on a single CPU machine, then >>you are simply out of your mind. >> >>I think you must have misread the arguments. > >No Dan he's read the arguements correctly! > >Posted by Robert Hyatt (Profile) on July 27, 2001 at 13:28:16: > >In Reply to: Re: Permanent Brain ON vs Permanent Brain OFF posted by Uri Blass >on July 27, 2001 at 11:58:57: > > >On July 27, 2001 at 11:58:57, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On July 27, 2001 at 11:18:08, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >> >>>On July 26, 2001 at 14:41:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On July 26, 2001 at 12:55:06, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 26, 2001 at 10:43:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 26, 2001 at 09:56:24, Matthias Gemuh wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Hi Robert, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I think you just wanted to make a joke. We all know that PONDER OFF hurts nobody >>>>>>>(Fritz used its full time). PONDER ON on one CPU is very appropriate to arrive >>>>>>>at wrong engine comparasons. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Regards, >>>>>>>Matthias. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>both will get 1/2 of the machine and the time controls won't be screwed up. >>>>>> >>>>>>ponder=off exposes the opportunity for a program to get into time trouble >>>>>>because it assumes it will save time with ponder=on when it really can't since >>>>>>it is disabled... >>>>> >>>>>Why the program should assume that it will save time in with ponder=on when >>>>>it knows that it is off already? >>>>>Shouldn't a program take this into account? >>>>>If ponder=off is an option for the program, it should notice the difference >>>>>and act accordingly IMHO. >>>>> >>>>>Regards, >>>> >>>> >>>>because in my case, 99.9% of all games played have ponder=on. I only disable >>>>pondering to debug so that I can reproduce the same searches over and over >>>>when necessary. Since almost all real games are played with ponder=on, I don't >>>>have a special time-allocation formula for ponder=on and another one for >>>>ponder=off. I just have one that _assumes_ ponder=on. >>>> >>>>I see no reason to waste what little time I have working on something that is >>>>hardly going to be used... >>> >>>Well, it is used a lot actually by lots of people already. Most of the people >>>are running matches with ponder=off for some reasons. >>>If both engines were tuned for ponder=off, it will be the best condition to >>>optimze the resources since time used pondering is never as good a time used >>>thinking. For instance, you have a competitive mindset in your answer but if my >>>purpose is to run a match between engines to learn a particulat opening, I want >>>my resources to be used as efficient as possible. That is ponder=off for both. >>>Maybe you could consider making Crafty to be able to process "ponder=off" >>>accordingly because there will be users that would benefit from it. >>> >>>Regards, >>>Miguel >> >>Crafty is not a commercial program so I guess that the way that users use it is >>not important for Bob. >> >>I also do not think that the difference between ponder on and ponder off is more >>than 20 elo in most of the practical cases. >> >>Uri > > >I disagree. When this first cropped up a couple of years ago, I ran a test, >gnuchess on a single-cpu, vs crafty on a quad pentium-pro 200, but using only >one cpu. The quad was far slower than the 500mhz single cpu by a significant >amount. The match was pretty even (ponder=on) even though crafty had a much >slower processor. With ponder=off, the match was way more lop-sided in favor >of GNU because crafty would get into time trouble and near the end of the >time period it would have to move too quickly to avoid losing on time. > >It was _clearly_ worse. And by more like 100 points, too. I adjusted it a bit >to help, but I have _never_ invested as much time in the ponder=off timing as >I have in the ponder=on timing. And I never will, any more than I am going to >try to tune my son's mustang to run on a road coarse when we only take it to >the 1/8th and 1/4th mile drag strips... > >I think you should spend the time making it optimal in the way it will normally >be used, not in oddball configurations... > > >I ran a bunch of games, everything equal but the hardwar > > >Quote/Hyatt; Nope... no joke at all. Two programs, one machine, my preference >is ponder=on. Wrong. That's clearly two machines. Let me pull out the relevant part so you can take a gander: "... I ran a test, gnuchess on a single-cpu, vs crafty on a quad pentium-pro 200, but using only one cpu." Clearly, he is talking about two different machines.
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.