Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:39:22 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. So? If you are predicting > 50% of the time, then there is not a thing wrong with sticking with this. It can fail high this iteration, then fail low the next one. > >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. Again, this doesn't work. Given the choice of pondering a move I believe will be correct over 50% of the time, vs pondering two different moves for 1/2 of the time, I'll take the former _every_ time. And get my _own_ deep search in since my opponent thinks something is worth a deep think also. So long as I predict > 50% of the time there is _no_ better methodology. > >I agree that the way that Dann suggest is not the best because most of the moves >are not forced moves and program still predict correctly a lot of these not >forced moves. > >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.