Author: Paul Tillotson
Date: 12:36:50 08/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 16, 1999 at 15:16:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 16, 1999 at 15:07:59, Paul Tillotson wrote: > >>On August 16, 1999 at 14:00:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On August 15, 1999 at 21:16:42, Randall Shane wrote: >>> >>>>During my alpha-beta search, if I run out of time before I complete a iteration, >>>>is it safe to just go with the move from the previous iteration?? >>>> >>>>What other strategies are used? >>>> >>>>Thanks! >>> >>>(a) use the best move backed up in _this_ iteration (even though you have >>>not completed it) unless the score has dropped markedly from the best score >>>the last iteration. In that cause, use more time. >>> >>>(b) use the move from the previous iteration if you haven't gotten a best move >>>for the current iteration yet, unless you have failed low in the current >>>iteration. In that case, use more time. >> >>if (a) then what would be a markedly dropped score? >>Would .5 pawn or a whole pawn be in the ball park? >> >>Regards, >>Paul > > >Actually I have a staircase of values. I am quoting from memory (you can check >time.c in crafty for actual test)... > >if the score drops 1/3 of a pawn, I use 2x the target time to try to 'get that >positional score back.'. If I am dropping a pawn, I think I will use up to 5x >the base target time. In cray blitz we were more dynamic than that, but I am >not sure it was a good idea (ie positional drop = 1.5x, pawn = 2x, piece = 5x, >mated= use almost all remaining time to find a way out...) Seems very reasonable. One other directly related question. If your score drops a full pawn then you give it 2x. Yet you found the positional score at about 1.1x (ie just needed a little more time) then is it worth stopping the search there? Or just finish the rest of the 0.9x time? Regards, Paul
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.