Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:02:30 05/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 24, 2000 at 20:41:13, Michael Neish wrote: > >>The idea is ok, but I don't like the concept of playing program X vs itself >>with different depths. Your conclusion can easily be right for Fritz, but >>wrong for other programs... It would be hard to draw conclusions based on >>testing only one program that is known to be very fast but not very 'smart'. > >Interesting comment. As a novice in this field I would have said that Fritz 6, >being "not very smart", has to rely on the benefit of deeper searches more than >a program with more knowledge, say Hiarcs. > >So if diminishing returns are observed in Fritz'z behaviour, whose strength is >search depth (if it's a dumb program), does it follow that it will be observed >more so with programs containing more knowledge? > >Cheers, > >Mike. It just means that as you go deeper and deeper, you are less likely to find tactical blows that kill. But you are still likely to either find or overlook positional problems if you don't understand them. And there are some things that you simply can't search to get the answer... you have to have knowledge. There are other cases where knowledge really doesn't help... you have to have a good search. I am neither "pro-diminishing-returns" nor "anti-diminishing-returns". So far, the evidence is inconclusive, IMHO. And I see _far_ too many positions in games I go over where one more ply would have made a difference. No matter how deep the thing actually went in the real game.
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.