Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 14:20:13 08/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2001 at 16:58:30, Scott Gasch wrote: >Hi, > >I am thinking about time management these days. Currently I have rules that >make the engine take extra time when it's just out of book or if it sees two >fail lows during a search. It will also move faster if the root position is >blocked and it's considering a move that won't help unblock it. > >Additionally it moves faster if it has a clear recapture (yes, I know this is >dangerous but I have several safeguards in place and I have not been bitten by >it yet). > >I have seen other engines that handle time differently, though. For example, I >don't take extra time to resolve a fail high at the root. And with the "take >extra time and resolve the fail low" rule, I only take a little extra time and >will play without resolving if that time runs out. I have observed ferret >seeming to take a bunch of extra time in these cases though. Should we always >resolve root fail highs or fail lows? How important is this? If you see a fail high and you are running out of time, just make the move that failed high. I have seen some (primitive) programs lose waiting to resolve a fail-high! On the other hand, if you have a fail low, you had better resolve it until you have used the absolute maximum of time you have set aside. Depending upon how bad the fail low resolves, you might even set aside even more time to try to resolve it. If (for instance) you went from +100 to -500, you are probably going to lose anyway, so you may as well search like the dickens for a solution. I imagine that others with more experience and experiments can give better answers than this. But it seems obvious from common sense.
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.