Author: Roy Eassa
Date: 12:12:43 09/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 27, 2001 at 12:13:10, Peter Fendrich wrote: >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. > The factor that causes the engine to be unsure of the move it selected to ponder, is the SAME factor that makes pondering multiple moves less useful. If there are several moves that are all about equal, then there are, by definition, also several moves among which you must divide your time pondering. Thus even if you were only 20% sure of your opponent's move, it still does not make sense to split your pondering time because each likely move would then get no more than that same 20%.
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.