Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 06:01:28 10/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 29, 2003 at 04:47:31, Daniel Clausen wrote: >On October 29, 2003 at 03:15:23, Jorge Pichard wrote: > >>"Experiments in Chinook show that there comes a point where increased search >>depth provides diminishing returns." > >Many chess programmers agree that the search- and the eval- part of an engine >have to be tuned so they work optimal together. (like you can throw out certain >parts in the eval since they're now covered with a better/faster search etc) > >Now you take an engine, which is optimized for todays hardware to reach a >certain depth in typical middlegame positions and make the experiment of >increasing search depth. Why can't the effect of "diminishing returns" not be >explained by the fact that search and eval are no longer working together >optimal? > >It seems to me that in all these experiments which try to prove the effect of >deminishing returns, the errors bars are bigger than the effect they want to >prove. > >Sargon One experiment that both Hyatt and Heinz did was to run their programs through a "deep" (14 ply) search and record the frequency of new moves, that is, what % of the time the program changed its mind. Their conclusion was that we still haven't reached the point of diminishing returns. Of course, this was some time ago, and evals/pruning/extensions/etc have all improved since then . . . anthony
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.