Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:55:08 11/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 12, 2000 at 15:10:43, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 12, 2000 at 13:25:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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... > >It is not clear. > >The benefit that you earn from another 3 minutes of search after you search for >more time is smaller because of diminishing return from speed and in cases that >you did not predict the move correctly in the first try you can earn the first 3 >minutes that are more important. Note that I don't necessarily agree with the concept of "diminishing returns" when it comes to search depth. > >If you predict correctly you still reply in 0 seconds so you did not lose time >on the clock and the only loss is the fact that maybe you could find a better >move with more time and the fact that you may be slightly slower in the next >search because you have less information that you learned from the search. > >Uri I might not lose time, but I lose whatever I would have gained by searching the move _deeper_. Sometimes that is enough to fail low, and find something better.
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.