Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:54:04 06/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 1999 at 09:51:05, blass uri wrote: > >On June 28, 1999 at 09:26:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 28, 1999 at 08:29:36, Francesco Di Tolla wrote: >> >>>>I can only offer two data points. In Crafty, _my_ timing allocation code >>>>assumes that there will actually be more time to use than crafty has at the >>>>point it has to make the decision. >>> >>>I'm sorry Bob, but I don't agree here. I think that if your program does this it >>>is a "problem" of your program. Any program that supports a "ponder off" mode >>>should also be able to play at maximum efficency within the time given. >>> >> >> >>Sorry but you are wrong. Should I spend 1/2 my time testing with ponder=off >>to be sure that it works optimally? Or should I spend 100% of my time testing >>in the way where the program plays the strongest? > >I think that you do not need to spend 1/2 of your time to test with ponder=off >to be sure that it works optimally. > >I understand that the problem is that you assume that you can save time when you >guess the opponent's move. >You can simply decide to use x% of your regular time because you know that you >cannot save time when the user can choose x. > >The user who are interested in engine-engine games can find by testing the >the value of x that is close to be optimal. > >Uri You just contradicted your own statement, however. Your last sentence says it all. It takes a lot of time to find X, and "X" isn't the only thing. IE when I see 'trouble' I use more time knowing I will make it up later. If I am not going to 'make it up' then I can't use as much. The 'timing' in a chess engine is non-trivial, in spite of how easy it may look on the surface. Only after you try to write/debug this code do you get an appreciation for just how hard proper time allocation is...
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.