Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 16:05:43 09/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 27, 2001 at 17:48:32, Peter Fendrich wrote: [snip] >Yes, I buy all that. My intention was to oppose to the "it's impossible" >statement. You are talking about some general case. There is no reason why each >move has to be 20% because the first one is. That's why I'm talking about >isolating cases where the other move might be better. Another question is what >happens if the ponder move has only 10% or 5% probability. >I have no proofs that these cases are possible to identify but I'm still open >for it, until I know better... Also, it does not have to be either/or. We could ponder the root for 1/2 of the extrapolated opponent time slice, and at that point, change to the pm and ponder that. It seems to me that there are many possibilities. Something that is puzzling me... If one move is really much better than the others, then we would think that it would fail high, re-search, and gobble most of the time anyway. If that does not happen, then some of the alternatives must be pretty good. So, why does pondering root yield only a 2% gain, and pondering the pm give an enormous one? It still does not make sense to me. I guess I'm just having a hard time understanding why it is so much better to ponder the pm instead of the root.
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.