Author: José Carlos
Date: 23:58:22 09/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 24, 2001 at 23:41:17, Dave Gomboc wrote: >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. > >Yes, many years ago Jonathan Schaeffer found this method (restarting the search >after a big fail-low) worked well for him. Make sure you give yourself enough >time to get back to a reasonable depth, though (for example, the same depth that >you found the fail-low at). Many people don't do it, though, so perhaps they >have found otherwise. > >It's funny that you were initially "disappointed"... why is that? Did you think >that your method was a bit of a hack and was doing the wrong thing in this >circumstance? :-) > >Dave I was disappointed because I expected the search to get quickly to the point where the ponder search finished, given the info in the hash table. I thought my method was wrong, and I must change it, until I noticed that it was actually working fine. José C.
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.