Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:05:30 11/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 12, 2000 at 10:54:42, Jeff Lischer wrote: >It seems if you correctly predict the opponent's move 100% of the time, this >would correspond to doubling your available time (you would be thinking on your >time as well as your opponent's time). If a doubling of speed results in an Elo >improvement of 60-70 points, is this also the maximum benefit for permanent >brain? With diminishing improvements at longer time controls, the benefit might >be even less? > >If the above is correct, then what about the case where you correctly ponder >only 60% of the time. This seems like a pretty typical value. Then is the >benefit only about 40 Elo points? > >Are there any other approaches to permanent brain that might be more effective? >At first I was wondering about simply searching on your opponent's time like you >do on your turn -- using selective searching to focus on the best moves. But >then I thought of another possibility. What about a different kind of searching? >Maybe search using lots of knowledge during your opponents time trying to >develop a plan? Or maybe do a fast selective search looking for killer tactical >shots? > >Humans think differently on their time versus their opponent's time. Maybe >computers would benefit from doing the same? I don't know enough about chess >programming, however, to know how (or even _if_) the results of that "opponent's >time search" could get passed to the "your time search". Would hash tables be >sufficient? This has been answered before... here is the quick version of the idea: let's take two different pondering algorithms: (1) present idea where we assume that the best move from the last search is searched for the entire time; (2) alternative where the best N moves are searched (less deeply of course). case 1: target search time is 3 minutes. The opponent takes three minutes to make his move. 1/2 (50%) of the time we are correct in predicting his move. 50% of the time, we can make a move instantly, since we would have used the 3 minute target. Total savings: 50%. In 1/2 the moves we move in 0 time, in the other half we do our normal 3 minute search. case 2: target search time is 3 minutes. The opponent takes 3 minutes to move. If we take the best two moves he could make and search them equally, when he moves, and assuming he makes one of those two moves, we would have spent only 1/2 of our target search time on the move he played. We have to search another minute and 1/2. If we predict correctly, we save 50%. If we predict incorrectly we save nothing. Just using two moves should move our correct prediction rate up, but _not_ to 100%. Which means this will never save as much time as case 1. If you use 3 moves to increase the accuracy of choosing the best move correctly, you only spend 1/3 of the target on each move and it gets worse. And worse.. searching the best move is _the_ right way to do this, _if_ you can predict 50% correctly. Playing GM players, it is likely that programs do _far_ better than 50%.
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.