Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 13:01:49 09/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 24, 2001 at 15:24:53, José Carlos wrote: > First, the context: > > Last night I finished implementing pondering for the first time. As usual, I >chose the easyest way to begin with, until I make sure I understand everything. > So I did it this way: after moving, I guess the opponent move (second of the >pv), make it, and start thinking. When the opponent's move arrives, I unmake the >guessed move, make the real move, and start thinking normally. I expected the >program to get to the pondering depth due to the info in the hash table. > This worked fine most of the time, but when the ponder search failed low deep, >the research didn't go straight to that point. Instead, it chose another move at >the begginning (because it saw the bad move in the hash table) and went >deepening slowly. > I was very disapointed with this behavior, but when I started playing on ICC, >I saw a big rating increase. Actually, the explained behaviour turned out to >work really good, as usually the program made a good move even with less depth. > > Now the question: > > Has this been tried in _normal_ search? I mean, restarting from the begginning >after a deep fail low. > Is this it a mistake to do what I'm doing? If so, what are the drawbacks? > > Thanks in advance, > > José C. I guess that in these cases Internal iterative deepening might help. If you are not using IID (I am not, it is in my to-do list, that is why I say that I am guessing) restarting from the beginning could be even better. That would be like a IID all over the tree, but faster because the hashtable kept values everywhere. Now let's wait for somebody who really knows somthing about this answer your question :-) Regards, Miguel PS: It looks like Averno will be stronger and stronger! Bravo Jose!
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.