Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 13:13:59 07/28/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 28, 2004 at 15:51:47, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 28, 2004 at 14:21:26, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On July 28, 2004 at 11:02:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On July 28, 2004 at 03:18:52, Sune Fischer wrote: >>> >>>>On July 27, 2004 at 18:26:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>Aha. And exactly how many times do you do the N+1 iteration and get the _same_ >>>>>best move? For crafty that is about 85% of the time. So I should cut the >>>>>search off one ply early? Or is that 15% critical? >>>> >>>>I don't understand the question. >>> >>>you said I wasted time by starting the next search which won't fail low most of >>>the time. I said you waste time by doing iteration N+1 that doesn't change the >>>best move most of the time. See the fallacy in the argument? I _know_ going to >>>depth N+1 won't change the best move most of the time. But it will likely >>>change the best move when it is important to do so... >> >>No. >>It's going to depend on how much time you have left. >>If you need 5 seconds to fail-low and you have 4 seconds left, you won't see it. >> >>>I never said "win-win". I said it works better for me after testing. And I >>>have done _lots_ of testing with various approaches. That's how I settled on >>>the current approach. I'm not much for tea leaves and Tarot cards. >> >>That interesting, because I was beginning to wonder how you could have such >>strong opinions on something you _haven't_ tested. :) > >I can add that I am practically sure that there are more ways for improvement >in time management. >I do not plan to implement them immediatly but I can only tell that they are in >higher priority relatively to pondering when the program is in book because >pondering when the program is in book is usually not relevant for more than a >single move(often the opponent may play the book moves so it even does not save >time) when ideas that can be relevant for every move in the game seem to me more >important. Yes I think so too. Perhaps there isn't a huge potential gain lying here, nevertheless it's interesting to try and figure out the ideal way to handle the special search finish. I already use a special algorithm for the first plies and I'm thinking about what to do with the really expensive end-plies. So much time can easily be wasted by doing the wrong things. >Crafty use some good ideas that I did not think about them earlier like using >time only to complete the root move that is not first move even after it used >the target time if it did not use too much time and this idea inspired me to >think about more ideas. Yes, there is an infinite number of possibilities here, with so much room for experimentation I doubt any engine is doing it optimally. -S. >Uri
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.