I just did the 32 MHz option on CB-Emu and the clock seems to run normal with the 32 Mhz setting? Are you seeing the same?

If the CB-Emu team have been able to accurately emulate the clock at 32 MHz. Then unless you are playing the settings for fun entertainment, when using a times 3 setting, ponder should be turned off for both computers, or you play a CB-Emu level where the CB computer emulation does not handicap the other computers pondering time, which of course would emulate a higher MHz as for example 96 Mhz if using 90 seconds (Times 3) versus 30 seconds.
I think this why we are all confused not knowing exactly the settings.

I do agree, Paul.
I have to disagree, Paul. Standard emu is 20 Mhz (As previously mentioned, this is an external clock and I guess there is a divider to achieve the above mentioned 10 Mhz).
Here are both the tab menu system information display, and the available configuration options for CPU Frequency:

The speed-up resulting from the 32 Mhz setting is 1.6 times (32/20). With regards to the actual 10 Mhz computing, this results in 16 Mhz actual tuning.

And yes Nick I checked the time display using 32 Mhz option, it runs faster than a normal clock. Obviously faster. The 20 Mhz standard/default time display ticks like a normal clock.
All the best,
Eric

Miniaturansicht angehängter Grafiken

 

Thanks Eric, I guess visually I obviously can't spot a difference between 1 second and .6 of a second Your calculations are of course spot on.
Regards
Nick

A last comment since this fun while I am playing a game and waiting for moves.

Even though I have never really liked ponder moves with dedicated computers because of their small horizon. Even with 20 Mhz you are lucky to get a search depth of 5 ply most of the time in middle games. So when it ponders and moves instantly I always felt it could avoid some of its instant move disasters if it had have calculated the next ply but missed that opportunity.

Using CB-Emu this becomes however an even bigger risk. So for example
Computer A now gets only 10 seconds to ponder. Its search now instead of 1000 positions at 30 seconds becomes 333 positions at 10 seconds. Whereas the 3x computer remains at 3000 positions. So what started as a 3 to 1 advantage now because of pondering is an almost 10 to 1 advantage while they ponder.

So I think there is a bigger handicap then we sometimes realize?

Sorry I think you messed up something here. If computer A can only compute 333 positions while pondering, this assumes computer B (3x accelerated) pulled after 10 secs - this hands over the turn to play to comp. A and stops prematurely A's pondering phase. Yet over these 10 secs B computed "only" 1000 positions, not 3000.
Another way to say it is: if comp. B 3 times accelerated benefits from 3000 computed positions per move, while comp. A features only 1000 per 30 secs, this means comp. B requires 30s per move as well (to reach 3000 positions). Then comp. A can use 30s pondering while B computes...

Kind regards,
Eric

Hi Eric
Just focusing on Pondering I think I am right.
1) Computer B since Computer A gives it full 30 seconds gets the benefit of 3000 Positions
2) Computer A since it only receives 10 seconds for pondering now gets 333 positions instead of its 1000 positions.
Computer B with 3x setup has a 3:1 advantage if computer a gets its full 30 seconds to ponder which is the same 3:1 advantage when not pondering.

However since computer B only gives it 10 seconds the result is 333 or 1/3rd of what it should get. This means while pondering Computer B gets instead of a 3:1 benefit because the 3x speed. It now has 9:1 in their pondering modes and 3:1 when not pondering.
Computer B always stays at 3000 positions when pondering 30 seconds or calculating 30 seconds.
Computer A is 1000 by calculating 30 seconds and 333 (10 sec) when pondering that is 9:1 under ponder.
Hence bigger ponder mistakes because the search depth with 10 seconds makes bigger Ponder mistakes.

Regards
Nick

Oh wait you are right.. I forgot Computer B moves in 10 seconds so the 3000 becomes 1000 so it is still 3:1.
But still making the other computer do possible ponder moves at 3 ply is obviously worse than 5 ply so there is a bigger handicap for computer A.

Lol confusing but I take it back I am right. Pondering only:

1) Computer B moves in 10 = 333 positions Ponder for Computer A (1000 positions at 30 sec)
2) Computer A moves in 30 Seconds = 3000 positions Ponder for Computer B (3-1 speed factor)

It remains for pondering 9:1
not Pondering = 3:1

I think Eric you were trying to confuse me

Regards
Nick

Hi Nick, bravo, you are getting close, nearly fully right
- Points 1) & 2) are perfectly true
- pondering 9:1 is as well correct
- yet 'not pondering' = 1:1; not 3:1 because 1) states comp. B moves in 10, so 1000 pos.; and comp. A moves in 30 for 1000 pos. as well...

Hoping this adds to confusion... lol
I need to apologize to Clive because this diverts from the interesting games he shared... But trying alltogether to better understand the acceleration effects is key!
All the best,
Eric

Hi Tibono,
We are talking about pondering.. Computer B gets full 30 seconds to ponder = 3000 not 1000. Only computer A gets 1000 at normal speed. Computer B has 3x speed = 3000. I am talking about time each computer gets to think while pondering only and not while calculating a next move.

4x speed factor
1) Computer B moves in 7.5 Seconds = 250 Positions Ponder for Computer A
2) Computer A moves in 30 Seconds = 4000 Positions Ponder for Computer B (4:1 Speed)
Pondering = 16:1
Non Pondering = 4:1

So you can really do:

2x2=4 Pondering handicap at 2x speed increase
3x3=9 at 3x
4x4=16 at 4x
5x5=25 at 5x

So if you increase to 5x you have 5000 moves divide by 25 and you know up front how many positions the 1x computer gets under ponder. In this case 5000/25 = 200 positions.