Author: Vincent Vega
Date: 14:22:55 05/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 23, 2000 at 09:07:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 23, 2000 at 01:18:21, Vincent Vega wrote: > >>On May 22, 2000 at 23:02:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On May 22, 2000 at 22:24:20, Mark Young wrote: >>> >>>>You are wrong, there is a lot of "say" that shows as you increase ply depth the >>>>next ply you increase gets fewer and fewer rating points. >>>> >>> >>> >>>Where? IE I have seen this _said_ several times. But I have never seen it >>>_shown_. Two good examples to the contrary are the "crafty goes deep" and >>>"dark thought goes deep" published in the JICCA. Both suggest that at least >>>until we reach depth 15/16, each additional ply is revealing new and more >>>important information about a position... and resulting in steadily improving >>>play... >>> >>>I think the programs are getting stronger every year, even if nothing is changed >>>but faster hardware... and it is reasonably linear... so far. >> >>I've started doing some experiments to determine if there is a rating increase >>falloff with longer times and the initial results seem to confirm my guess that >>there will indeed be a falloff due to an increasing number of draws. So far >>I've done mostly Crafty self-play tests at short time controls and only few test >>games with other programs and longer time controls so the results aren't >>definite. I'll try to do more testing but I've been busy lately. > > >Program A vs Program A is not a good test. Also blitz games won't show a >thing. The question is does every ply boost the rating the same amount? To >answer this you have to be able to search to depths of 15-16 plies. No point >in comparing depth 5 to depth 6... it is more important to compare depth 15 to >depth 16. I don't like the idea of fixating on a ply. A program can do some things only in plies less than 5, or it can do some things only in odd plies, etc. Also comparisons across programs are invalid. I think that blitz games do show a lot. If the difference at 2 min vs. 1 min is less than the difference at 4 min vs. 2 min, which is less than the difference at 8 min vs. 4 min, which is less than the difference at 16 min vs. 8 min, which is less than the difference at 32 min vs. 16 min, it seems very suggestive to me. Doing tests at long time controls that are significant would take months, unless you have a computer lab to spare, which I don't.
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.