Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:53:29 07/27/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 27, 2004 at 18:10:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 27, 2004 at 16:53:17, Uri Blass wrote: > >>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. > >Correct... > >>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) > >No. It is zero for either case. IE my "ponder start time" is the instant I >start pondering. My non-ponder-start-time is the instant I start searching. My >time limit will either be ponder-start-time + time limit, or >non-ponder-start-time + time limit. IE when I ponder and use my target, I might >actually use zero clock time. With a non-ponder search I always burn time off >of my clock. > >But here is an easier-to-visualize explanation: > >I set a target time of 100 seconds and start pondering. My opponent makes a >different move. I re-start the search from the right position, and I'll burn >100 seconds off my clock, then make the move. > >I set a target time of 100 seconds and start pondering. My opponent makes the >right move after 150 seconds. Since I have searched for > my target time, I >move instantly and save that 100 seconds to use later if needed. > >I set a target time of 100 seconds and start pondering. My opponent makes the >right move after 50 seconds. I continue searching for another 50 seconds to use >my total 100 second time limit, but I only burn 50 seconds off the real chess >clock. I save the other 50 seconds for use when needed later in the game. I understand. It simply seems to me not the best decision and I think that it is better to decide about the target time after the opponent plays it's move. The reason is that if you pondered the correct move you simply have more time for other moves and not use part of it for the next move seems to me not correct decision. The problem may be more important in time control of x minutes/y moves Let look in the case of 40 minutes/40 moves(does not happen in ICC but happen in tournaments that people play). Suppose that Crafty is at move 39 and has 2 minute on the clock for move 39-40. suppose that the target time is the average time that you have for a move. Suppose that you decide about target time of 1 minute and the opponent use exactly 1 minute to play so you respond immediatly. Now at move 40 your target time is bigger and is 2 minutes. A better decision seems to me to increase the target time for move 39 to 1.5 minutes and you can use 1.5 minutes both for move 39 and for move 40 that seems more logical to me than 1 minute for move 39 and 2 minutes for move 40. 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.