Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:01:09 07/27/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 27, 2004 at 15:25:50, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 27, 2004 at 13:26:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 27, 2004 at 12:42:42, Uri Blass 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. >>>> >>>>When the target time is reached, I set a flag that says "do not search another >>>>root move, but don't stop until either the current root move has been searched >>>>or 2x the time limit has been used." This does not apply if the root move being >>>>searched is the first one in the list... >>> >>>Basically there are 2 cases to consider. >>>case 1:you did not expect the opponent move correctly. >>>case 2:You expected the opponent move correctly. >> >>I completely ignore this. My only purpose for "pondering" is to save time so >>that I have more later when I need it. > >I think that it is wrong to ignore it because the situation is not the same. > >suppose that you have 2 minutes to finish the game when the opponent played fast >in previous moves and have 20 minutes to finish the game > >Suppose also that the opponent used 2 minutes for the last move. > >If you pondered the correct move you can use more than 2 minutes without losing >on time(you count in that case also the time that you used in the opponent time >otherwise you can never reply immediatly) and there may be cases when you want >to do it(for example after a big fail low when you hope to find a better move). I don't understand. When I am "pondering" I have no "time limit" to deal with. The time limit is set when my opponent actually moves and my clock starts. I will generally "move instantly" in such a case where I have a small time target but used a lot of time waiting on my opponent... > >If you pondered wrong move then it is clear that you cannot use more than 2 >minutes without losing on time. And I wouldn't. I'd use my normal time allocation logic that considers time left, moves left, etc... > >It means that the decision how much time to use from the time you started to >search to the time that you play should be dependent on the question if you >pondered the right move. > >Uri Not for me. I don't separate the two cases. If I predict correctly, then at the instant my opponent moves I notice I have already used more time than I would have on a normal search so I exit and make the best move right now. If I predict incorrectly, I set the target time and do a normal search. Pondering may let me go deeper as my opponent can take more time for his search than I budgeted for mine. But all I will do is _save_ the ponder time for later, assuming I am in no trouble here and now.
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.