Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:44:19 09/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 27, 2001 at 19:05:43, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. If by "root" you mean the position _before_ any opponent move, then the reason is obvious... you will spread your time over N moves, which means that when the opponent moves, you will have looked at the _right_ move only 1/N of the time. You still have a long time to search to meet the target time for this search.
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.