Author: Uri Blass
Date: 16:02:49 07/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 29, 2004 at 18:30:26, Sune Fischer wrote: >On July 29, 2004 at 11:44:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>"more complicated" != "more advanced". I don't believe it is possible to >>accurately forecast the time for the next iteration. Which means when is it >>appropriate to do that quick nullwindow search? > >I can't pridict when a check extension is wasted and when it is useful either, I >can only say if it works better or worse on average. > >> And when you do it and it >>returns way quicker than you expected, what do you do with the remaining time? >> >>There appear to be more problems this way than with what I currently do... > >Simple != Good I agree and not agree. I agree that simple does not have to be good but I also think that exactly the same thing can be more simple if it is a good code and less simple if it is a bad code. For example it is possible to have in many places in the code some conditions like: if ((a-b)*p<=c) when a,b,p,c global varaibles and a=The time now b=time of starting the search p=the expected brancing factor c=time that is too big to start a new iteration. In my case I had some significant names but they still did not do the code easy to understand. It is also possible to have some code if (time_next_iteration_is_too_big()) when the functions time_next_iteration_is_too_big() is defined in time.cpp and is using static varaibles that only that file knows. I think that the second solution is more simple inspite of the fact that the algorithm is the same and I am now working on modification in movei to do the code more simple without changing the time management algorithm. > >(I can play that game too:) > >>>But you have not tested what I'm suggesting. >> >>I have definitely tested doing a fail-low search. You can find references to >>that back in 1978 which was when I finally dumped the idea of "don't start the >>next iteration if I don't believe it can be finished..." > >Then why did it not work, which part failed, what is your analysis? > >>> >>>>Your "assumption" is based on facts that have tons of contradictory evidence (IE >>>>I _have_ done lots of testing and reported on it many times in various ways.) >>> >>>AFAIK it was a completely new spin on an old idea. >> >>There's nothing new about the null-window search at all. As I said, in 1980 >>_every_ search I did started with a null-window search. As did Belle's... > >Don't mix two experiments here, I'm not talking about starting every search with >a nullwindow... Note only that if you start some search with null move window it is not only a change in time management. I believe that it can be a good idea to do it but I am now interested only in changes in time management so I do not plan to test it in the near future. 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.