Author: José Carlos
Date: 04:32:38 04/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 30, 2002 at 03:15:36, Steffen Jakob wrote: >On April 29, 2002 at 16:06:31, José Carlos wrote: > >>On April 29, 2002 at 15:52:32, Scott Gasch wrote: >> >>>On April 29, 2002 at 14:01:23, Joe McCarro wrote: >>> >>>>If I were playing someone over the board and they seemed to give me a >>>>possibility to play Bxa1 snatching the rook I would think long and hard before >>>>doing that. I'd figure as long as this isn't a trap I will win the game. Let me >>>>take my time to just make sure its not a trap. I wonder if this couldn't be >>>>programmed in. Anytime the other player makes what on the surface appears to be >>>>a blunder (e.g., drops over a pawn) the computer could spend extra time working >>>>out the position before moving. If it ended up it was in fact just a blunder >>>>presumably the computer should still be able to win despite the extra time spent >>>>looking for the tactical shot. If it found it wan't a blunder the computer >>>>might avoid taking the poison. Do the programmers do anything like this? Would >>>>this in fact be helpful or would it have disadvantages as well? >>> >>>This idea could certainly be programmed. But there's a problem. Let's assume >>>the engine is playing a blitz game and has allocated itself 10 seconds to think >>>about a move. In 10 seconds it gets to depth d and realizes that the move it >>>wants to make seems to "win". To get to depth d+1 will a long time, maybe 10 >>>more seconds or so. To get to depth d+2 may take 10 + 20 more seconds >>>(sometimes more). >>> >>>So my point is, to say "this position is important, I should think about it a >>>bit more" is fine... but to think about it even just a little bit more may take >>>a really long time. The question is whether its a good use of the engine's >>>allotted time. Maybe. >>> >>>Personally, I do some tricks with time allocation but nothing as direct as the >>>idea you suggest. I consider it just too expensive, especially at fast time >>>controls. >>> >>>Scott >> >> Some time ago I (Averno) was playing Hossa on ICC. Hossa took a long time to >>reply a quite normal move and Steffen told me Hossa extended time when there was >>a big jump (up or down) in the score, exactly with the above stated idea. >> I'm not quite sure about it, but it'd be certainly interesting if Steffen >>himself could tell us his experience with that time extension. > >Hossa is a slow searcher. Most of the time he gets outsearched against other >comps. Therefore it doesnt happen very often that a computer opponent blunders >away material which Hossa sees very quickly. Instead it is likely that in a >deeper search the score will drop and also playing the obvious move from the >shallow search would lose. Therefore Hossa extends the time there. Of course I >consider how much time I have overall, if there is an increment, how big the >score increment was etc. The idea is simple: 1. if it was really a blunder then >I will win anyway. 2. If it was a trap-like move then thinking deeper might safe >my life (which happens rather often!). I think adding this was an improvement >for Hossa. This might not be true for other engines which dont get outsearched >as often as Hossa. > >Best wishes, >Steffen. Thanks for your comments. Hossa is a very interesting opponent to play against. 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.