Comment by TheDong

Comment by TheDong 15 hours ago

2 replies

> To throw a consistent amount of compute at each move, the simple thing to do is give the engine consistent amounts of time per move.

The simple thing to do is give it a limit on the total number of states it can explore in its search.

If your goal is consistency, wall-clock time makes no sense. If I run 'make -j20', should the chess computer become vastly easier because the CPU is being used to compile, not search? Should 'nice -n 20 <chess app pid>' make the chess computer worse?

Should my computer thermal-throttling because it's a hot day make the chess computer worse, so chess is harder in winter?

If the goal is consistency, then wall-clock isn't the simple way to do it.

shadowpho 15 hours ago

>If the goal is consistency, then wall-clock isn't the simple way to do it.

It’s simpler than doing a limit on number of states, and for some applications consistency isn’t super important.

Doing a time limit also enforces bot moving in a reasonable time. It puts a nice limit to set up a compromise between speed and difficulty.

Doing state limit with a time limit might be better way to do it, but is harder.

  • Dylan16807 9 hours ago

    > It’s simpler than doing a limit on number of states

    According to who?

    A counter that you ++ each move sounds a lot easier to me than throwing off a separate thread/callback to handle a timer.

    > Doing a time limit also enforces bot moving in a reasonable time.

    It's designed for specific hardware, and will never have to run on anything significantly slower, but might have to run on things significantly faster. It doesn't need a time cutoff that would only matter in weird circumstances and make it do a weirdly bad move. It needs to be ready for the future.

    > It puts a nice limit to set up a compromise between speed and difficulty.

    Both methods have that compromise, but using time is way more volatile.