Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 17:36:30 01/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 27, 2000 at 20:27:03, Jeremiah Penery wrote: [snip] >I was taking your wording literally that *speed*, not *depth*, has diminishing >returns. Because the speed has to go up exponentially to see more depth. And >seeing more depth is the only way to get a better rating (using the same >program, of course). I don't think seeing more depth is the only way to get a better rating. Better positional understanding is worth more ELO also. And if we could somehow get computers to *plan* that would be worth a lot. I think if you could improve two areas of computer play, it would have an astronomical payoff. First, the openings. People [Er.. Gm's] are a lot better than computers at understanding opening theory. If we could couple a computer to a database with (say) 60 million positions analyzed in detail and with won/loss/draw statistics, who played them by ELO, etc -- we could make a huge stride in that department. I suspect (without proof) that 1/2 of all computer program losses against other computers is due to bad opening book advice. When you fall out of book at -200, what can you do? You have an enormous disadvantage that most of the time will prove fatal. Second, the early endgame. A very average player like me can see mistakes in computer play in the early endgame. Once they hit the tablebase files, it's over. But when the board is sparse, I think humans have a clear advantage. If we could get the computers to operate better in this phase of the game, it would remove a huge number of the human wins against the machines. I think both improvements would also mean dramatically better results against computers also, not just people. Neither of these would necessarily require more plies. Just a big pile of data in the first instance, and improved algorithms in the second.
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.