It seems important to have some way of measuring how good / settled the current "best move" is, particularly if you're also going to think in your opponent's time. Otherwise, you could end up spending significant amounts of "allocated" time when, for example, a sequence of forced moves is being played out and little thinking time is actually required. I'm not sure of the technical details, but I would have thought that UCT would provide a good estimate of how confident it is that it has found the best move that it's ever going to find.
Oliver On 1/6/07, Eduardo Sabbatella Riccardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello, I was thinking about this a few days ago and I decided I will try the following: When the engine is searching for best moves there is a "game path" of 3, 4 or up to 10 moves that the engine have found to be the "best moves" so far. 0) Before start the search, based on total available time, and current move, engine will decide Tmin time and Tmax time based on some static function. 1) Engine will run for Tmin ms. 2) if "game path" have not changed in the last n ms, search is finished. (n = Tmax-Tmin / c ) 3) if game path changed, it will extend the search for n ms. 4) if total time exceeds Tmax ms. Search is finished. I think its usefull to avoid "local maximums" that can be hard to avoid, perhaps next move is "easier" to get a better move, so it worths to spend more time on next move as its "value/time" ratio is better. My 2 cents. Eduardo PS: Definitely I will spend more time on first moves as they decide the rest of the game. On Thursday 04 January 2007 06:04, Peter Drake wrote: > How much time should a program spend on each move? > > If my program has t milliseconds left to use in a game, and there are > an estimated m moves left on the board (e.g., this many vacant > spaces), one reasonable choice is t / m. > > In practice, this seems to spend too much time on early moves, which > (under UCT/MC) is largely wasted time. Would it be better to use > something like t / m**k, for some constant k? (Looking at graphs of > such functions, k = 1.5 seems reasonable.) > > It would also be interesting to look at the graphs of how much time > humans spend on each move; is it usually less for the opening moves > than for middle / endgame moves? Is there a smooth curve, or is there > a relatively abrupt shift from joseki to analysis? > > Peter Drake > Assistant Professor of Computer Science > Lewis & Clark College > http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/ > > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ __________________________________________________ Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí. Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas, está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta). ¡Probalo ya! http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
