Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:04:07 09/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 11, 2000 at 17:23:35, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On September 11, 2000 at 16:52:35, Uri Blass wrote: > >>The evaluation showed the scores: >>73 depth 8 >>54 depth 9 >>51 depth 10 >> >>The fact that the evaluation is positive and goes down should encourage the >>program to use significantly more time. >> >>It is risky to use significantly more time in this case when you have not many >>move to the time control but it is not risky when you have 25 moves to the time >>control. >> >>Using twice than the regular time even before seeing the fail low at depth 11 in >>this situation is not risky and the regular time is clearly more than 1 minute >>because part of the moves were in book. >> >>After seeing the fail low it is clear that it should use more time. > >Well, it didn't see a fail low within the given time for the move, otherwise it >would have used more time. The difference in score is only 0.22 and it's just as >reasonable to save time when there's no sudden drop in score. I think that the fact that there is a small drop in score should encourage it to use more time(this reason may be not enough to encourage it to use enough time but the fact that it wants to play g2-g4 when g2 is near the king should also encourage it to use more time because g4 is a move that has a bigger chance to be an error). Very few, if any, >programs will multiply the calculated time usage with three due to such a small >drop in score. I do not think that it needs to multiply it by 3 because of the following facts: 1)finding the fail low takes less time than finding the exact score. 2)the first move were part of the opening book so it had more than 1 minute per move. Multiplying it by a smaller factor was probably enough(If you assume using your computer and using ponder off). I am also not sure if the best time allocation is not to allocate sligthly more time for the first moves out of book(if you have 120 minutes/120 moves it is clear that it is better to use more time for the first moves and I am not sure what is the right idea when the number of moves to the time control is 25). > >Besides, you can't make a direct comparison as my computer is significantly >faster, while Christian had ponder enabled and hashtable info as well. I agree. Uri
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.