Author: Don Dailey
Date: 11:58:05 07/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
Hi bob, I'm snipping a lot of stuff ... >>>I think the "time to solution" is also a perfectly acceptable way of >>>tsting. In a game, I hardly ever "finish the last iteration" so such a >>>time doesn't mean anything. I do care about how long it takes me to find >>>a key solution, because if that time is within the time limit I would have >>>in a game, I would find it, if it isn't I won't. >>>So picking the time that the program finds the move (fail high) is a >>>reasonable way to time things, IMHO... IE this is the way everyone reports >>>WAC results, not waiting on the iteration to complete. If we did this, I >>>would not get wac141, because the fail high happens very quickly (a few >>>seconds) but getting the mate score back takes me about 2 minutes because I >>>get hung up in lots of deep checking lines... >> >>There is absolutely nothing wrong with time to solution and that is >>perfectly acceptable too. >> >>Larry likes time to solution iteration because it is less sensitive >>to root move ordering although its still not perfect. >I'm not sure this solves the root-move-ordering problem however, because >if you look at checks first, and a check is best, the rest of the moves >will still go by a whole lot faster once you get alpha set. With null- >move, it is even worse, as it is not uncommon for the first move to take >90% of the total search time, and the null-move search waxes the rest of >the moves in a few seconds... > >So you still would get buggered by funny move ordering I would think. Like I say, it isn't perfect, just an improvement. I don't think doing it your way is an error by any means. - Don
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.