Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 08:27:34 04/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 25, 2000 at 09:12:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 25, 2000 at 00:50:50, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On April 24, 2000 at 22:13:10, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>>On April 24, 2000 at 18:49:04, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>> >>>>On April 24, 2000 at 15:56:37, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 24, 2000 at 15:43:24, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>>>>[snip] >>>>>>Here's my question. If pondering=off cripples Crafty so badly to the point that >>>>>>Bob Hyatt has to write dozens of posts about it, why doesn't he just do >>>>>>something to fix it? I mean, surely the time spent writing all those posts could >>>>>>have been put to better use. >>>>> >>>>>That makes a great deal of sense if Dr. Hyatt were writing crafty to make people >>>>>happy who want to play engine verses engine matches on a single machine. >>>>>However, he does not play it that way and it is contrary to his purposes. >>>>> >>>>>Do you alter your programs to make them do what others wish even when it does >>>>>not coincide with your desires? >>>> >>>>Yes. >>>> >>>>-Tom >>> >>>If your point is that Bob should do this or that, I think that Bob should be the >>>one who decides what Bob does. It's great to suggest improvements in >>>functionality or support, but if Bob wants to do it his own way, that's fine. >> >>Decisions are influenced by your surroundings. >> >>Right now, Bob is surrounded by people who do matches between Crafty and ___ >>with no pondering. Consequently, Bob has to do a tremendous amount of damage >>control. Here are the options, as I see them: >> >>1) Continue to waste time by doing massive damage control >> >>2) Simply remove the ponder switch from Crafty, so Crafty can't be crippled >> >>3) Un-cripple Crafty >> >>Personally, I would not like to _continually_ make excuses for my program, i.e., >>option 1. I think option 2 is a hack, but still better than option 1. >>Personally, I would go with option 3. >> >>I don't really see what the problem is with option 3. If Crafty is using too >>much time in the opening and middlegame, just make it use less time. Multiply >>some number by 75% or whatever. It may not be a "fine tuned" solution, but at >>least the program won't lose all its games. >> >>-Tom > > >Once you add some sophistication to your time control logic, you will see that >the above is a very 'superficial' suggestion. Base time allocation is but one >part of the problem. How much time can you use (extra time) when you get a >positional fail-low, not a material one? How much extra time can you use on a >fail low for a single pawn? For a piece? What if you do a 12 ply search, and >the first 11 plies show you winning a pawn. At depth=12, after the first move, >you discover that move doesn't win that pawn. How much extra time do you use >there to see if the pawn win was real, or just a deep tactical plan by your >opponent that made the pawn a "phantom"... Why can't you just multiply all this stuff by 0.75? Anyway, I don't understand how pondering directly affects any of this. What is a situation where the 0.75 thing fails because pondering=off? And what's the "correct" thing to do in said situation? -Tom
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.