Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:27:25 07/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 30, 2004 at 18:10:39, Sune Fischer wrote: >On July 30, 2004 at 10:24:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 29, 2004 at 19:32:37, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On July 29, 2004 at 19:06:40, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On July 29, 2004 at 18:56:12, Sune Fischer wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 28, 2004 at 17:39:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>I should add that I fudge near time controls anyway. IE when I get close, I >>>>>>won't try to burn off my saved time. I just let it carry over to the next T/C >>>>>>to help there. IE there is no sense in burning 30 minutes on move 40... >>>>> >>>>>I don't have that fudge. >>>>> >>>>>If that fudge was needed I'd say something was wrong with the time manager, why >>>>>else would one want to save up that much time in the first place? >>>>> >>>>>-S. >>>> >>>>correct pondering and easy moves. >>> >>>All this is scaled with the available time in my engine, easy moves takes a >>>certain percentage of normal moves, and with a lot of time left pondering will >>>not be a full hit only sort of a half hit. I'd need to keep searching even on a >>>ponder hit. >>> >>>>It is also logical to save time in the first place for other reasons. >>>> >>>>Imagine that you have time control of 2 hours/40 moves+1 minute for the rest of >>>>the game. >>> >>>Ok that makes sense actually. >>> >>>>Is it logical to use almost all the 2 hours for the first 40 moves and to get to >>>>a serious time trouble or maybe it is better to save 30 minutes so you can use >>>>them after move 40? >>> >>>I think Bob would have problems anyway, because he said he only looked at it >>>when he got close. >>> >>>You'd need to consider this almost from the beginning of the game if you don't >>>want to burn too much time in the opening. >> >>I do this from move 1. I just consider the _next_ time control as well, as I >>really don't want a distinct "boundary" where I am searching for X seconds on >>move N, but some small fraction of X seconds on move N+1 just past the time >>control. That's asking for trouble... > >I see it a bit differently, I let the time control control the engine in the >strict sense. > >It is pretty much what humans do with the standard FIDE time controls anyway. >Very often at least one of the players will get very close to the control, so I >think generally it is wise to get close also for the engine. I am a human chess player and I don't do that. IE I have played in several "tornado" events that go something like 40/1hr, game/30min for the time control. As I near move 40, I don't go into deep thinks to burn up that 1 hour. I use it when I need it, but do my best to save whatever is not needed for use in the next time control which is sudden-death. > >But also, it's because I've given up a bit trying to outsmart those that insist >on using silly conditions. > >I.e. suppose they set a time control like: 2 moves in 100 minues + 8 moves in 1 >minute + 50 moves in 60 minutes + 17 moves in 2000 minutes + 100 moves in 1 >minute.... > >Definitely I'm not very interested in attacking these sorts of complications :) Neither am I. But n moves in M minutes then sudden-death in P minutes is very common. Actually it is the prevalent time control nowadays. There is good reason to save time when practical when facing a sudden-death time control. > >-S.
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.