Author: Pham Minh Tri
Date: 21:19:10 08/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
Thank Bob, I am very intested in your method to manage the time. Some my additional questions: 1) I see with this method program always runs out of time. As a result, in some situations when some moves must be searched double time, the time is running out quickly, program forces to search other moves much less time (e.g. 1/2 time). Is it true? 2) What will you do when program is pondering and human makes a move differs from guess move? Continue to finish the current root move or stop pondering immediately? Best regards, Pham On August 22, 2001 at 20:23:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 22, 2001 at 15:53:38, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: > >> >>You do this even if you are running out of time and with a big advantage >>already? > >Yes. In most cases, each root move takes a fraction of a second, after the >first has been searched to get a score. Which means for most cases, this >doesn't influence time usage at all. > > >> That is what I am worried about if I decide to complete the analysis >>of a root move. It if is good that it is worth anaylzing, it might take some >>time, always less than the "main" move though. If it is fast, probably it was >>not worth analyzing!. But I can see the point: every time a root move has been >>interrupted there are wasted nodes. That is a fact. We better complete those >>moves AND allow a bit less time to think per move to compensate. >>But I would not do that if I am short of time and a piece up. What do you think? >> > > >If you want to make an exception, that is probably a good one. I just chose >to "keep it simple, stupid" and do it every time... :) > > > >>Would not be a safer idea to have to different time deadlines? >>t1 --> first time (the regular): time is up if we are analyzing the main move. >>t2 --> (t2 > t1) if I am analyzing any other root move, I do not stop when the >>time is > t1, I just continue, but t2 would be an "emergency" time out, in which >>I _have_ to stop no matter what, in any situation, for instance I consumed too >>much time because the search exploded and I am too close to lose >>on time. Generally, this should never happen but it will guarantee some >>"accidents" that makes me burn a lot of time in a position that is not worth it. > >I have that. I can use up to 2x the normal target trying to do what I >explained, ie I won't burn forever. If the target is 3 minutes, I am >going to move after 6 no matter what unless I get a fail low... > > > > >>(i.e. I am winning anyway). >>t2 could be adapted according to the evaluation after the main move was >>analyzed. >> >>I am doing something similar if I interrupt in the PV move and the eval that it >>returned is a fail low. That is bad news even though the search was not finished >>so I continue the iteration, but until I find a move that does not fail low or I >>finish the iteration or I reach the "emergency" deadline. >> >>This is not completely tuned up, but I think that I could use it along your >>aproach. Whay do you think? >> >>Regards, >>Miguel
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.