Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:31:58 07/27/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 27, 2004 at 12:22:45, Sune Fischer wrote: >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. I don't. When it expires, I simply say "ok, when all currently active root moves are completed, we stop (more than one can be active due to parallel search of course). Because I have seen way too many cases where I am about to change my mind, but that makes the tree so big that I can't finish before time runs out. Now I try to handle that specific case. > >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. > Yes, but it is not really "ad hoc". I have N moves left to play, and I have M minutes of time to do so. So I really _do_ have to have a plan that (a) lets me search long enough to find necessary tactics; (b) saves enough time so that should I get into some sort of difficulty before the time control I have time to search my way out of it; (c) I have reasonable time left for the moves just prior to time control so that I don't make a simple tactical error. It is all related.. >>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? Nope. I said what _I_ do. Very clearly. And I said what _I_ believe. You can always take it with a grain of salt. My time allocation stuff comes from many years of watching and tweaking. Not pulled from a hat with no thought... What your question has to do with my statement about not checking the time at the end of an iteration, but only inside the search, I have no idea.. > >-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.