Author: Michael Neish
Date: 01:19:42 05/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
vidence is inconclusive, IMHO. And I see _far_ too many positions in games >>I go over where one more ply would have made a difference. > >You will always see cases when one ply would make the difference. >The only claim about diminishing return is that you will see it more often at >small depthes. Excuse me, but my understanding may be a little skewed. I can see arguments in favour and against there being diminishing returns for deeper searches (which is maybe why no one can say one way or the other). On the one hand I don't see why there should be diminishing returns if, say, the Knight fork that wins your Queen could always be one more move down the line. If you're at move 30 and the deadly fork is 15 ply later, and you can just see it, then if you put the position back a couple of ply you might not be able to see it anymore. On the other hand, deadly tactics that arise later on are probably due to errors you make earlier that in a way set it off. If you don't see any deadly tactics coming within 15 ply then chances are you're doing something right, so perhaps you are reducing the chances of them appearing later (I admit this argument is far weaker than the previous one. I'm not even sure it's correct.). Well one of the arguments has to be wrong. Comments? Cheers, Mike.
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.