Author: Uri Blass
Date: 02:19:08 02/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 11, 2002 at 04:25:46, Sune Fischer wrote: >On February 10, 2002 at 23:33:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>Note that I qualified my answer. "there is no apparent DR for searches that >>we do today, or searches we might do in 2 years." > >Sure, but to me, it sound like you believe this is a case of assuming no-DR >untill proven otherwise. If anything I would probably say the opposite: assume >DR untill proven otherwise. I can imagine positions when there is an increasing returns. Imagine a position when there is a trap when at small depth programs fall into the trap and lose the game. If you give program at small depth to play you may find result of 50% because the program that starts is losing because of falling into the trap and after falling into the trap finding the moves is simple. If you give programs at big depthes to play they do not fall into the trap so you may see result of more than 50%. I see no reason to assume that there is diminishing returns. It is clear that there will be 0 returns after solving the game and I tend to believe that usually there is a deminishing returns even before solving the game but when the game is not simple you are not close to solving the game and it is not clear for me that practically there is deminishing returns. I expect to see deminishing returns in chess in the future only because I believe that chess is relatively a simple game but it does not mean that it is simple enough to have diminishing returns without big books on the hardware of today. 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.