Author: Uri Blass
Date: 21:26:33 11/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 2002 at 00:11:24, Uri Blass wrote: >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 I mean that you have the risk that you did not consider the opponent move even for a small time and this small time is important when you are in time trouble because if you have 1 second for all the game you need that small time for other moves. 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.