Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 14:23:35 09/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 11, 2000 at 16:52:35, Uri Blass wrote: >The evaluation showed the scores: >73 depth 8 >54 depth 9 >51 depth 10 > >The fact that the evaluation is positive and goes down should encourage the >program to use significantly more time. > >It is risky to use significantly more time in this case when you have not many >move to the time control but it is not risky when you have 25 moves to the time >control. > >Using twice than the regular time even before seeing the fail low at depth 11 in >this situation is not risky and the regular time is clearly more than 1 minute >because part of the moves were in book. > >After seeing the fail low it is clear that it should use more time. Well, it didn't see a fail low within the given time for the move, otherwise it would have used more time. The difference in score is only 0.22 and it's just as reasonable to save time when there's no sudden drop in score. Very few, if any, programs will multiply the calculated time usage with three due to such a small drop in score. Besides, you can't make a direct comparison as my computer is significantly faster, while Christian had ponder enabled and hashtable info as well. It's just too bad it didn't find the right move. Mogens.
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.