Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 06:42:46 07/27/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 27, 2004 at 09:33:13, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >On July 27, 2004 at 03:18:50, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On July 25, 2004 at 22:01:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>Bad idea. Start the next iteration even if you don't think you will have time >>>to finish it. You might fail low. Wouldn't that be nice to know? :) >> >>This may or may not be a good idea. >> >>I think if it is a good idea, then you should always try and search the next >>iteration for a short time to see if you get a quick fail-low. >> >>On the other hand, if it is a bad idea it is better to save the time that will >>probably be wasted anyway. >> >>From what I can tell you propose to do a mixture, i.e. to use extra time if the >>time manager tells you to? >> >>I really doubt this is the best way, because it will be extremely random when >>you get to begin the next ply. >> >>-S. > >It seems you have 3 options here: > >Optimism: Hope that a move you haven't searched yet will fail high; terminate >after searching all moves. > >Pessimism: Make sure that the move you want to play won't fail low: terminate >after searching the first move. > >Don't Care: Just exit whenever time runs out ;) I think you have more choices, e.g. search the next ply, when time is about to run out, with a null window around the fail-low bound. Just to assert as quickly as possible that it doesn't fail horribly low. Little sense in trying to resolve an exact score for the next ply if you only 15% time left. -S. >anthony
This page took 0.01 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.