Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: A pondering idea... [a more clear {hopefully} example]

Author: Peter Fendrich

Date: 09:13:10 09/27/01

Go up one level in this thread


On September 26, 2001 at 21:45:46, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On September 26, 2001 at 20:32:58, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
-- snip --

>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.

I don't agree if that's what you really mean. "can _not_ be..." is hard to prove
in this case. In theory at least you can do better. The _average_ hit rate is
>50%
If you know that this hit rate vary with different circumstances you will find
out different hit rates. If we could separate out cases with very low hit rate
it might be succesful with another scheme for just these cases. I've never
tested this but it would be interesting to see the hit rate for "consistent"
FH's (survives several iterations) compared to the rest. The hit rate for
pondermoves giving about the same evaluation as before is probably higher (much
higher?).
I can think of other types of cases as well.
Has anyone computed the figures for different cases like this?

I would like leave this "can _not_ be..." open until at least some test like
this is done.

//Peter





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.