Author: blass uri
Date: 13:56:15 05/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 26, 2000 at 16:23:31, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On May 26, 2000 at 15:12:55, blass uri wrote: > >>Maybe there is a misunderstanding. >> >>I will describe the actions of a chess program by example: >> >>1)end of iteration 9: >> >>time: 25 seconds >>best move: 1.e4 >>evaluation:0.12 pawn for white >> >>2)program starts to consider e4 and only this move when it finishes the >>calculations we have this information >> >>time: 44 seconds >>best move: 1.e4 >>evaluation:0.1 pawn for white >> >> >> >>3)the program starts to consider d4 >> >>It finished considering d4 and find that d4 is better and we have this >>information: >> >>time: 56 seconds >>best move: 1.d4 >>evaluation: 0.11 pawns for white >> >>4) the program do the same with Nf3 and we have this information: >> >>time: 70 seconds >>best move: 1.Nf3 >>evaluation: 0.13 pawns for white >> >>5)The program consider other moves like h3 but find they are not better. >>We have the following information at the end of iteration 10: >> >>time: 100 seconds >>best move: Nf3 >>evaluation: 0.13 pawns for white >> >>If the program stop at the end of iteration 9 then it is going to play 1.e4 >> >>If the program does part of the iteration(stop after 60 seconds) it can play >>1.d4 that is considered to be better than 1.e4 >> >>If the program does a full iteration it will find Nf3 that is considered to be >>even better. >> >>I do not see something illogical here. >>I hope that my explanation is clear. > >Yes, now I think I know what you mean and it isn't illogical at all. But >basically it doesn't matter which move the program makes in this example since >the evaluation is so close. Furthermore Nf3 may appear to best at iteration 10, >but it might not be best at iteration 11. The narrowness of the evaluation >difference suggests that this would be very likely. This was only an example. The difference in the evaluation can be big in another example. > >The second problem is the time. Since my original post was about the importance >of ponder at blitz timecontrol, I find the times in your example troublesome. 56 >seconds is too long even with added time from 100% correct pondering and it's >virtually impossible to find the "best move". You could divide the times by 10 and in this case it is important for blitz That's my main problem in this >entire thread. There isn't enough time to make sure that the best move is found >and that it _is_ the best move. If Nf3 was the best move at iteration 10 and 11 >there's reason to be confident, but there isn't enough time to reach iteration >11. I do not see difference between 5 minutes per game and 50 minutes per game. in 5 minutes per game you can reach only iteration 8 and 9 instead of 10 and 11 but it does not change the fact that the same thing can happen. 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.