Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Uniform depth reporting proposal

Author: Will Singleton

Date: 21:22:15 08/27/00

Go up one level in this thread


On August 27, 2000 at 17:55:23, Andrew Williams wrote:

>On August 27, 2000 at 17:41:07, Dan Newman wrote:
>
>>On August 27, 2000 at 08:54:51, Brian Richardson wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>>
>>>One awkward thing for me right now relates to predicted moves.  Generally, if
>>>Tinker ponders for longer than the normal next move search time and the
>>>predicted move is made, then Tinker moves immediately.  Unfortunately, the score
>>>and PV from the pondering are lost and bogus values are reported from the
>>>abnormally short search.  This is annoying when reporting, and a real problem
>>>when going back to do position learning.  I am thinking of just saving the
>>>pondering search results separately for these cases.  Any other suggestions?
>>>
>>
>>What I do for pondering is just do a normal search with the time limit set
>>to "infinite".  Then when the opponent's move comes in I either break out of
>>the ponder search and start a new search (in case his move is different from
>>the predicted move), or I just set the time limit and continue searching
>>without breaking out of the ponder search.  If the time has already expired,
>>the search will immediately terminate as it ordinarily does when it runs out
>>of time, with the full PV and so forth retained.  Of course the code that
>>does all this is one of the ugliest parts of my program, very difficult to
>>debug, and I don't entirely understand it :).
>>
>
>Everything you say here applies equally to my program too.

Ditto for me.  That code took the longest time to get right, and I never want to
look at it again.


>
>>>The situation is similar but worse when there is only _one_ legal move, which
>>>Tinker makes immediately.  I was reporting the raw root eval(), but this caused
>>>Tinker to resign a KNNvK game (which Tinker had seen was drawn according to
>>>EGTB's).  I suppose EGTBs should be checked too.
>>>
>>
>>Mine does this too.  I end up without any ponder move for the next go, so my
>>program just sits there waiting...  I plan to add somthing that will find a
>>ponder move when there is none, but just haven't gotten around to it.
>>
>
>If there's only one legal move, PostModernist just does a depth 4 search,
>then returns. This way I get something to ponder.
>

Yeah, I should do that too, would take a minute or so to program.  But I can't
see it helping that much.



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.