Author: Ralf Elvsén
Date: 09:28:43 03/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 29, 2001 at 12:22:08, Bertil Eklund wrote: >On March 29, 2001 at 12:18:26, Ralf Elvsén wrote: > >>On March 29, 2001 at 11:27:23, Hans Christian Lykke wrote: >> >> >>>32... g5 {-0.78/17 7200} 33. f5 {-1.19/16 120:00m} * >>> >>>[D] rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1 >>> >>>Shredder played the move expected by Deep Fritz: 33.f5 >>>Shredders evaluation dropped from -0.48/16 to -1.19/16 ?! >>> >>>Shredder now expecting 33...Rxf5 34. Re3 >>> >>>Next move by Deep Fritz on Friday >>> >>>Venlig hilsen >>>Hans Christian Lykke >> >>In this situation I wonder: are you keeping a strict 2h/move? Or do you >>let Shredder look at all moves at the depth? >> >>If you terminate the search after exactly 2h and don't let shredder finish >>an iteration I think this game isn't particularly interesting. This is >>not even close to how a program would allocate time in a real game. >> >>Ralf > >Looks very close to a fixed time per move I think. > >Bertil Yes, and how many games are played in that way? And how many engines have a search able to handle that? But if you know that Fritz and Shredder can handle this I am happy to have learned something new. Think how you play yourself: you play 40/120. You decide to allocate close to 3min/move. After 2 min 59 s you realize that the move you think looked very good will give away your queen for nothing. Wouldn't you spend more time trying to find a better move and be very upset if someone came and pushed the "Move now"-button? Ralf
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.