Author: Uri Blass
Date: 23:36:52 10/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 06, 2001 at 21:23:38, Christophe Theron wrote: >On October 06, 2001 at 16:38:02, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On October 06, 2001 at 15:56:29, Roy Eassa wrote: >> >>>On October 05, 2001 at 20:52:36, Christophe Theron wrote: >>> >>>>I believe there is a strict equivalence between search and knowledge. They are >>>>the same thing. Like energy and matter are the same thing in modern physics. >>>> >>>>So if there is dimishing returns from deeper searches, there is dimishing >>>>returns from better knowledge. >>>> >>>>And this is also pure speculation of mine, but there are some facts to back up >>>>this. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> 2 >>>We know E=MC . >>> >>>What is the equivalent formula for depth versus knowledge? >>> >>>;-) >> >>Rating=1500+D*(10K+60-D+K*K) >> >>D is depth and K is knowledge >>;-)) >> >>It means the following: >> >>D=10 >>K=1 >>Rating=2110 >> >>d=10 >>K=2 >>rating=2240 >> >>d=10 >>k=3 >>Rating=2390 >> >>You can see increasing returns from knowledge >> >>similiar calculation can prove deminishing returns from depth(you are going to >>get negative returns from depths if the depth is very big but I do not care >>because the formula does not have to be correct for depthes that are too big to >>be practical. >> >> >>I was only joking but the point is that saying that there is an eqvivalence >>between depth and knowledge does not contradict increasing returns from >>knowledge. >> >> >>Uri > > > >I was thinking about some linear equivalence between depth and "knowledge" >(evaluation), very much like e=mc^2. > >But this is too far stretched at this time. > >One basic fact that supports my point is, and I think Bob described the >phenomenon himself some time ago, that improving the knowledge (evaluation) of a >program is especially needed when the program cannot reach high depths. > >He talked about this about the older version of Cray Blitz of whatever was >before Cray Blitz. > >I have noticed the same thing, and this is the basis of my belief that there are >dimishing returns from improved knowledge. > >This goes against the already old urban legend saying that "more knowledged >programs" (programs with slower evaluations) will be superior on faster >computers (which is clearly denied year after year). > > > > Christophe I think that it depends on the knowledge and there is knowledge that cannot be replaced practically by search depth because you need to search more than 30 plies forward. Suppose that a program that has no knowledge about king safety plays against program with knowledge about kingsafety. At small depth it is not going to be important because tactical mistakes are going to dominate and searching 1 ply deeper than the opponent may be more important. At big depthes it is going to be more important because the program with more knowledge is going to have enough depth to play for a sound king attack without tactical mistakes and 1 ply is not going to help the program without knowledge about king safety because there are moves that in order to see that they are bad (not for king safety reasons) you need to search at least 30 plies forward. Uri
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.