Author: Uri Blass
Date: 21:11:24 11/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 12, 2002 at 19:59:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 12, 2002 at 10:56:15, Russell Reagan wrote: > >>On November 12, 2002 at 10:26:46, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>I think that they may get 5 plies and not 2 plies and >>>I also think that 2 plies can provide useful information. >>>For example you may see that all the moves except 2 are losing so you can >>>increase the priority of the interesting thread(not the move you expect) to 10% >>>and you have 90% for the move that you expect and 10% for an interesting move to >>>check. >>> >>>if you search 10-12 plies with 90% of the time then you may search 8-10 plies >>>with 10% of the time and you can increase the 10% to more than it later based on >>>information that you get in the search. >> >>You need to learn about how threads work. You can't set them to percentages. You >>can only set them to a handful of levels. For example, you can set thread A to >>run at a priority of NORMAL, and you can set threads B, C, and D to run at >>BELOW_NORMAL, and thread A will ALWAYS run before B, C, or D. That means that if >>thread A has something to do all of the time (and if you were pondering, it >>would) threads B, C, and D would NEVER get ANY processing time, so when I said 1 >>or 2 plies for the low priority threads, that was a generous estimate on my >>part. In reality it probably wouldn't get any processing time at all. This is >>how it works in Windows at least. I'm also not sure what the maximum number of >>threads is, but there is a limit. I know that WaitForMultipleObjects will only >>handle a maximum of 64 threads. > > >Or on linux you could use nice. Where nice 20 means that thread will get about >5% of the >cpu, nice 0 (the default) means it competes equally with other processes, and >the others vary >over that range. But I think that idea is simply bad for lots of reasons... I understand your reasons I still do not think that the idea is bad but I think that for maybe 5 elo that I can get it is not important. Note that another point is that I think that the time that you use for the played move is not the only factor and it may be better to use in average 59% of your time for the played move when you always use some time for the played move and not 60% of your time for the played move when in 40% of the cases you even do not consider the expected move(an extreme example is a case that was mentioned by the second poster when your opponent has one day and you have one second but you do not know when your oppoent is going to play. You need to be ready to play also in case that your opponent use 10 seconds inspite of the fact that the opponent has 24 hours and if you use the strategy that was suggested to go to another move only after you use some target time then you have the risk that you will have no move that you considered. Uri
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.