Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:53:17 07/27/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 27, 2004 at 16:01:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... Suppose that it is game in 30 minutes without increasment to do things more simple. If I understand correctly you simply use the following factors to decide if to play immediatly. 1)target time that is based on the time that you have to finish the game. 2)time used that is based on the time that you started the search(if you pondered correctly it is a positive number and if you pondered wrong it is 0) 3)state of searching(for example if you search the first move or not the first move). 4)maximal time that you have to finish the search(You may use more than twice the target time in case of fail low and without decision of some maximal time you may lose on time). The question is how you decide about the value of target time and maximal time when you start to ponder. If they are based only on the time that you have on the clock then the problem is that your rules may force you to play immediatly even in cases that you have time on the clock. Maybe you use the time on the clock and add the pondering time that you used to ponder the correct move to decide about the target time and the maximal time but in that case you have something different when you pondered correctly like different target time and different maximal time. I also think that the question if you pondered the correct move should be relevant for different reasons. There may be a situation when you pondered for a long time and have a fail high that may be wrong fail high and you do not fully trust it(if the opponent is a computer it may use the long time because of fail low so it may be logical to check it). What do you do? You can decide that you already used more than twice of the target time so you will not search more but often wrong fail high are detected relatively fast so I think that if the fail high was not detected as wrong fail high you may decide that it is better to continue to search and if you did not ponder the correct move you could never use long time in the first place to get the fail high. Uri
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.