Author: Peter Fendrich
Date: 08:28:42 09/28/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 28, 1998 at 10:41:29, William H Rogers wrote: >The only time you should worry is when you newest version starts playing worse >than your old version. It was once written that if you had a perfect evaluation >function, you may not have to search deeper than one ply. This may not ever be >accieved, but the theory is justified. If searching 1,000,000 nodes does not get >better results than searching on 5,000 then stick with the 5,000. It is after >all the programs playing strength that counts, not how much it has to search to >achieve that goal.... >Bill Sure, winning games is better than losing them... :) Search does in fact have some good effects by itself... There was an intresesting article in ICCA Journal a few years ago. I don't remember any details about the authors and such but here is what I remember from the article. They played two programs against each other with completely random evaluation. One program searched the tree, gave the leafs a random evaluation and and backed up the values in an alfa/beta manner. The other program just gave each move from the root a random evaluation. The first thoughts about a match like this is that the result will be as random as the evaluation code, but it wasn't! The results showed that the tree version was better because of a tendency to get more space just because of the tree search itself. Well, my memory is fading here... //Peter
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.