Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:02:56 01/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 16, 2001 at 05:15:43, José Carlos wrote: >On January 15, 2001 at 14:32:41, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On January 15, 2001 at 02:19:54, Leen Ammeraal wrote: >> >>>Thanks, it is now very clear to me that >>>this time control aspect badly needs >>>improvement. >> >>Time control is very important, but you will find that the strongest programs >>use a lot of time early to gain a superior position. Don't try to even it out >>or something like that or you'll be sorry. > > I may be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure this wouldn't work in my >program. This is my reasoning: > Not being a null-mover, my program takes a lot of time to go a ply deeper in >the early midgame, so if I let the program use more time there, I'd probably end >up searching an extra ply in one position and consuming a lot of time, so that I >can't use "extra time" for any other position. > The way I do right now, I try to get to a reasonable ply early in the game, >and use the extra time in the endgame, when a few seconds can give me some extra >plies. > Don't know if this makes sense, after all... > > José C. > >>Look at the time controls for some very good programs and you will see what I am >>talking about. For Gromit (for instance) one big improvement between version 3 >>and version 2 is better time management. If you have a nice, fat hash table and you guess the opponent's move reasonably often, using time up front is not so expensive, since you get it back on subsequent searches.
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.