Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 09:22:45 07/27/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 27, 2004 at 11:11:10, Robert Hyatt 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. > >No idea what that means. I set a target time. If I have not used that much >time, I keep searching. Whether that means starting a new iteration or >continuing on the current iteration. The point is, that there is no reason to view the "target time" as an untouchable all holly entity. Remember, you generated that target time from a very lose ad hoc algorithm in the first place, not taking anything search related into account. Therefore it is going to be very coincidental how much time you get left over for the final iteration. >I _always_ start the next iteration even if there is only one second left, as I >don't do my time check in Iterate() but only inside the search itself. > I don't understand your comment. Do you mean that just because you _always_ do something one particular way, it is evidence that it can't be done any better? -S.
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.