Author: Frank Quisinsky
Date: 14:12:00 07/31/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 30, 2001 at 21:26:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 30, 2001 at 10:44:22, Frank Quisinsky wrote: > >>On July 30, 2001 at 09:31:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On July 29, 2001 at 10:50:47, Frank Quisinsky wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>Hi Bob, >>>> >>>>the same discuss then for 2 years here :-) >>>> >>>>I, the ex non ponderer, will say the following: >>>> >>>>01. >>>>You have right if you say that with ponder = off engines have time manangment >>>>problems, not all and not in all games but it's an important point. I know that >>>>this is for statistics not sooo important (ELO statistic). >>>> >>>>02. >>>>Match without ponder on single system with Athlon 1Ghz: >>>>Engine A = 1Ghz >>>>Engine B = 1Ghz >>>> >>>>Match with ponder on a single system with Athlon 1Ghz: >>>>Engine A = ~ 497-500Mhz >>>>Engine B = ~ 497-500Mhz >>>> >>>>Now we have 25-40% ponder hits if the engines play on the same level (after my >>>>experiments). >>>> >>>>Result: >>>>500Mhz + 25-40% ponder hits = ~700MHz. >>>> >>>>With ponder = on, the matches are running with 700Mhz on 1Ghz Athlon! >>>>With ponder = off, the matches are running with 1Ghz on 1Ghz Athlon! >>>> >>>>I believe better is to play with ponder = off on single system. OK, the time >>>>managment is a good point so say please with ponder but 300 MHz is a better >>>>point to say please without ponder. >>>> >>>>03. >>>>4-piece and 5-piece tablebases and engine-engine matches on a Dual system ... >>>> >>>>This is not very clear. >>>>We have engines witch used tablebases very aggressive or not very aggressive. >>>> >>>>Example: >>>>Gromit - Patzer with 5-pieces ... >>>> >>>>Gromit played move 50 in 2:45 with ponder = on and 5-pieces. >>>>Only 20-30% processor time in this game if Gromit used 5-pieces. >>>>Patzer played move 50 in 1.25 with ponder = on and 5-pieces. >>>> >>>>Now the same positions with 4-pieces ... >>>> >>>>Gromit play move 50 in 1.58! with ponder = on and *4-pieces*. >>>>Patzer played move 50 in 1.13 with ponder = on and *4-pieces*. >>>> >>>>Without 4-piece tablesbases are the differents not very important. >>>> >>>>In my opinion it is better to play eng-eng matches with ponder on a dual system >>>>with 4-piece tablebases. >>>> >>>>Best >>>>Frank >>> >>> >>>Your math is fine. >> >>Hi Bob, >> >>good, for two years you say my math is bad, but in this case you have right (I >>mean for two years) :-)) >> >>But your reasoning is wrong. Which would you rather do: >> >>>(1) play a match between two programs, using their strongest settings, and using >>>two 700mhz processors; >> >>>(2) play a match between two programs, using weaker settings on at least one, if >>>not both, using two 1ghz processors? >>> >>> >>>I vote for (1) because of using the strongest settings. You are voting for (2) >>>to avoid wasting compute cycles. I think (1) is more important... >> >>Yes, this is a good idea and a nice experiment. >>I have an Dual Pentium III 733 MHz and an Dual Pentium III 1GHz. >> >>But it is not 100%ig clear which test exactly! >> >>What do you think about the following match idea: >>Only with one CPUs to point 1-4. >> >>01. >>Crafty 18.10 on Dual Pentium III 733Mhz with ponder against Yace 0.99.50 on Dual >>Pentium III 1.05GHz (the machine is running with FSB = 140) without ponder, 40 >>moves in 40 minutes, 50 games. >> >>02. >>Yace 0.99.50 on Dual Pentium III 733Mhz with ponder against Crafty 18.10 on Dual >>Pentium III 1.05Ghz without ponder, 40 moves in 40 minutes, 50 games. >> >>03. >>The same match but Crafty 18.10 without ponder (1.05Ghz) and Yace 0.99.50 >>(1.05Ghz) without ponder, 50 games. >> >>04. >>After this matches, a new match Crafty 18.10 (1.05Ghz) with ponder - Yace >>0.99.50 (1.05 Ghz) with ponder, 50 games. >> >>In 2-3 months, after my CCE tourney I can make a test. >>If you have a better idea please write. >> >>I think 128 MB for hashtables, and 4pieces tablebases is good enough for the >>experiment. Tablebases with 4Mb cache. No lean options in configuration files. >> >>Best >>Frank > > >I don't think the experiment is valid... Because you don't know how much >crafty and yace are affected by ponder=off. It is possible that both do a bit >worse on time management. So that the matches match pretty well in score. But >does that mean ponder=off is then ok? Only for those two programs. You have to >repeat this for _every_ pair of engines you want to test like that... Hi Bob, OK, I think I understand! If I have more time (in 2-3 months, must play the latest rounds in my CCE tourney) I have now new material :-)) I write a mail in 2-3 months, befor I started. Hope you have time to check later all important points of this experiment, better "SMP" eyes system :-). Best and thanks Frank
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.