Author: blass uri
Date: 12:36:55 05/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 24, 2000 at 15:07:17, Mike S. wrote: >On May 24, 2000 at 14:16:07, blass uri wrote: >>(...) >>I agree that if the human opponent is using a long time for one move(for example >>more than 10 minutes at tournament time control) it may be better to stop >>analyzing the reply for the expected move and start analyzing the second best >>move and after it the reply for the second best move but I do not think that >>this idea is very important. >> >>Another possible idea is if you discover by analyzing the predicted move that >>the predicted move may be a mistake(an extreme example is if the evaluation is >>mate foryourself after the predicted move) there is no point in continuing to >>analyze the predicted move and it is better to start to analyze a different >>move. > >From the viewpoint of an user, the latter seems to be a good idea and especially >attractive , when the program furthermore discovers during the pondering, that >it's mate whatever move the opponent will make. It could then "suddenly" >announce a mate out of the permanent brain! > >I remember that the idea of a "multiple" pondering was already used once in a >board computer, the SciSys (or Saitek) Turbo 16K, and also in the 24K I think. >Maybe this could be decided by the program according to the evaluation >differences between the best, 2nd best and 3rd best expected moves: For example >at tournament setting, if the difference is smaller than +- 0.2 pawns, it could >use the first minute for the 1st move, then switch to the 2nd best etc. The program has no idea about the difference between the best move and the second move. If you want it to calculate it then it needs time and it will have less time to use the parmanent brain. Uri
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.