Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:50:31 11/22/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 22, 2001 at 21:26:37, Dan Andersson wrote: >>It is anectodal from the perspective I gave... namely that of playing >>A vs A (different depths) to extrapolate how A does at increasing depths >>against _anybody_. >> >I have to agree, but in its own context it would be called substantiated. The >context or contexts of the different points of your posting was, IMO ambiguous. >That's why i posted the factoid in return. I hope someone with more time in hand >makes a similar test, in regards to accuracy and reliability. Many obstacles to >generalisation to A B matches when A neq B exist. The internal definition of ply >is one. Different extensions strategies is another. Bugs that occur rarely but >wastes good play, or are a function of depth being a prime or generally a >function of depth ... etc. It might even be that diminished returns between two >different programs is dependent on too many factors to be measured reliably. One >criterion that ought to be fulfilled before trying to find diminishing returns >between two different programs. One that needs to be there, is that both >programs show diminishing return in self play testing. I cannot give a valid >reason right now. But I have a hunch that it might be an almost necessary >prerequisite. Any thoughts? > >MvH Dan Andersson Something tells me that for A vs A, there _must_ be a diminishing return, because all that changes is the depth. But in A vs B, the search depth is just one difference between the two players. I _always_ find positions where another ply (or another N plies) would find the right move...
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.