Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:26:47 01/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 28, 2000 at 00:41:49, Len Eisner wrote: >On January 27, 2000 at 21:50:08, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On January 27, 2000 at 18:01:39, Peter Kappler wrote: >> >>>On January 27, 2000 at 13:52:38, Christophe Theron wrote: >>> >>>>On January 26, 2000 at 20:06:04, Peter Kappler wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 26, 2000 at 18:23:50, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 26, 2000 at 18:10:10, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>IOW, more horsepower is a tough way to make chess programs play better. There >>>>>>>is also evidence (according to some) that the increase in speed has >>>>>>>*diminishing* returns. Hence, it may take a terahertz to get there. Don't know >>>>>>>of any material that could do that, not even a Josephson Junction. >>>>>> >>>>>>I think it's a great way. You just take a vacation, preferably a long one, and >>>>>>when you come back you make one call to Gateway and poof, free Elo points. >>>>>> >>>>>>Got an article that shows that the Elo curve flattens out with increased depth? >>>>>> >>>>>>bruce >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Ironically, Dann and I recently debated this very topic. If you use the 7-day >>>>>filter, you can probably find the discussion under "DBx1000 = how strong?" or >>>>>"tactical sufficiency threshold". >>>>> >>>>>It seems obvious to me that the curve must flatten out with increased depth, but >>>>>I'd be fascinated to see evidence to the contrary. >>>>> >>>>>--Peter >>>> >>>> >>>>I'd be fascinated to see evidence of what you say. >>>> >>>> >>>> Christophe >>> >>>Hi Christophe, >>> >>>I must admit that seeing you and Bruce on the opposite side of the fence has me >>>beginning to doubt myself. :-) >>> >>>I find this topic particuarly interesting, as I think it says a lot about the >>>basic nature of chess. >> >> >>You are absolutely right. >> >>Chess programmers do not, I think, understand so far the "basic nature of >>chess". At least I claim that I do not understand it. >> >>Every time I manage to make a new algorithm work, I learn a little bit more >>about it. >> >>I think that chess programming brings us, year after year, closer to a better >>understanding of the game. >> >>Every assumption about the game must be very carefully checked. Most of the time >>the assumptions I made were WRONG, and proved wrong by experimenting. >> >>As I just consider myself as a normal guy (not overly smart but no too stupid >>either), I would advice anyone to be extremely careful with common sense >>assumptions in computer chess. >> >>That's why I am very skeptical when somebody comes here, explain in length a >>smart looking theory, but is unable after that to prove it works by producing a >>very strong program. A theory that pleases the human mind is something I always >>find suspicious. To name a few: >>* Dimishing returns (or Tactical barrier) >>* Slow=positional, Fast=tactical >>and so on... >> >> >> >>> My intuition tells me that in most chess positions, a >>>certain search depth is sufficient to "understand" that position, and avoid any >>>serious problems. Searching beyond that depth would give diminishing returns. >> >> >>For a human player maybe. Not for a computer program. >> >>The human brain loses itself in the variations after a while. A computer program >>does not. >> >> >> >>>It seems like a simple experiment to conduct. Just play lots of self-play games >>>between an n-ply and n+1 ply search, and after 500 games, increase n. Keep >>>increasing 'n' Surely these experiments have been conducted. >>> >>>If you can point me to any relevant articles, I'd be grateful. I have read the >>>"Crafty goes deep" article in ICCA, but the results didn't seem conclusive to >>>me. >>> >>>--Peter >> >> >>Ernst Heinz has conducted the same kind of experiment and published the results >>as well in the ICCAJ. >> >>He also posted here that he has treated the subject in his new book, and also >>said that so far no experiment has been able to prove the "dimishing returns" >>phenomena. >> >> >> >> Christophe > >Let?s do a little thought experiment. Imagine a program that could search deep >enough to solve the game of chess. I know it?s not possible today, but just >imagine it. Now, if the deepest possible search solves the game, how can there >be diminishing returns for increased search depth? > >Len That is the trivial case. Because you do not search deeper when you find a forced mate. But on the iteration before the last one, going one ply deeper certainly does make a difference. :)
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.