Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:25:15 11/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 12, 2000 at 12:48:14, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 12, 2000 at 11:05:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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. > >This assumption is not correct. >The opponent(espacially in cases that the opponent is human) may use 30 minutes >for one move and less time for the other moves) > >I believe that in this case it is better to stop searching the best move after >part of this time and start to consider the response for the second best move. > >Uri The same thinking applies. I am _sure_ I am going to predict his move over 50% of the time. If he takes a long time, should I take a long time, or should I do a bunch of three minute searches on different moves he might choose, and after _his_ long think I play a move found after a 3 minute think? I think the current approach is best for _all_ circumstances...
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.