Author: Uri Blass
Date: 01:01:53 09/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 27, 2001 at 03:59:57, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 26, 2001 at 21:45:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: > ><snipped> >>Here is the problem.. I had to explain this to Komputer Korner a few years ago >>as well... >> >>If you correctly predict your opponent's move at least 50% of the time, or >>more, then the way we currently ponder can _not_ be improved on. > >Not correct. >There are ways to improve the pondering but not the way that bdann suggested. > >For example if your program ponders for the opponent move and fail high and find >that it is winning after the fail high then it is possible that the program >expect a blunder and it may be better to go back to the root position to see if >the opponent has a better move and to ponder for the better move. > >Another idea is in cases that the opponent goes for a long think(for example 30 >minutes at 40/2 hours game) for one move and in this case it may be better to >stop pondering after the program pondered for enough time and to start pondering >for the next best move or for the root position. First you need to ponder for the root position and only later you can know the next best move so pondering for the next best move may be done only after pondering for the root position when you assume that the opponent does not do the expected move. 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.