Author: Dan Honeycutt
Date: 04:56:17 07/21/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 21, 2004 at 05:43:57, Aivaras Juzvikas wrote: >On July 21, 2004 at 05:38:14, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On July 21, 2004 at 05:33:23, Aivaras Juzvikas wrote: >> >>>On July 21, 2004 at 05:27:31, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On July 21, 2004 at 03:18:02, Aivaras Juzvikas wrote: >>>> >>>>>has anybody got any good ideas what to do with the time saved, when you have >>>>>only one legal move at root position and instead of launching a search, you just >>>>>make that move instantly. >>>>>meybe it would be wise to add the saved time to the next move so you search it >>>>>for twice as long as you would normally. >>>>>im askin this question because its very hard to test it (it rarely happens). >>>> >>>>I do not understand your problem. >>>> >>>>Every move you get a new time control and decides about the time management >>>>based on the new time control and the position. >>>> >>>>If you had 34 seconds for 4 moves and played a move instantly then now your new >>>>time control is 34 seconds for 3 moves. >>>> >>>>Using constant time for moves is also not logical and it is important to use >>>>more time after fail low. >>>> >>>>I also do not use constant time per move for other reasons and I try to stop in >>>>most cases at the end of the iteration and the idea is that at the end of the >>>>iteration the program cannot change it's mind quickly because it needs to search >>>>the move that it plans to play first so if the program needs a long time to >>>>change it's mind then it is good to play immediately and not waste time. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>correct me if im wrong but having only 1 single legal move is usually because >>>you're in check, thats a threat and more time in this case would certainly help. >>>if its not a threat then oh well, its not like you lose much. >> >>It is usually because the side to move is in check but I do not see a reason >>that it is espacially important to use time in the move after it. >> >>The rule should be to use more time when you believe there is a good chance to >>change your mind and to use less time when you are almost sure that you will not >>change your mind. > >good point, however i dont see how it could hurt if one did what im proposing >here. I do. You want to allocate the extra time on the next move for a threat that may or may not exist. Better to allocate it, like Uri says, for a fail low when you know you have trouble. Dan H.
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.