Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 02:57:44 05/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 24, 2000 at 18:00:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 24, 2000 at 15:08:15, Ernst A. Heinz wrote: > >>Dear Fellow Computer-Chess Enthusiasts, >> >>In view of the current discussion about diminishing returns in the thread >>"Ply Depth in Relation to ELO again", I like to share the results of my >>latest self-play experiment with you. >> >>The stunning outcome of the new experiment is that it shows the existence >>of diminishing returns for additional search in computer chess self-play >>with 95% statistical confidence, exemplified by the program "Fritz 6"! >> >>The title and abstract of my M.I.T. LCS Technical Report on the >>experiment follow below. >> >>*********************************************************************** >> >> ``A New Self-Play Experiment in Computer Chess'' >> >> ABSTRACT >> >>This paper presents the results of a new self-play experiment in >>computer chess. It is the first such experiment ever to feature search >>depths beyond 9 plies and thousands of games for every single match. >>Overall, we executed 17,150 self-play games (1,050--3,000 per match) >>in one "calibration" match and seven "depth X+1 <=> X" handicap >>matches at fixed iteration depths ranging from 5--12 plies. For >>the experiment to be realistic and independently repeatable, we relied >>on a state-of-the-art commercial contestant: "Fritz6", one of the >>strongest modern chess programs available. The main result of our new >>experiment is that it shows the existence of diminishing returns for >>additional search in computer chess self-play with 95% statistical >>confidence, exemplified by the program "Fritz6". The diminishing >>returns manifest themselves by declining rates of won games and >>reversely increasing rates of drawn games for the deeper searching >>program versions. The rate of lost games, however, remains quite >>steady for the whole depth range of 5--12 plies. >> >>*********************************************************************** >> >>Please find the full report in gzip'ed PostScript format at the URL >><http://supertech.lcs.mit.edu/~heinz/ps/new_exp.ps.gz>. >> >>Any comments welcome! >> >>=Ernst= >> >>P.S. >> >>Electronic preprints of my earlier publications on the relationship >>between computing power and playing strength of chess programs are >>available from http://supertech.lcs.mit.edu/~heinz/ and the WWW >>pages of "DarkThought" at http://supertech.lcs.mit.edu/~heinz/dt/. > > >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'. In my opinion, this thing about Fritz being "fast and dumb" is a common place with little grounds. Fritz is certainly fast, but not more dumb than anything else I know, including "smart" programs like Hiarcs, Rebel and Mchess. Since these programs don't take advantage of their "knowledge" when playing the so called "fast and dumb", we should start questioning their smartness. Same for the way they all fall for anti-computer traps. Rather than fast versus clever, what I see is variations on the same theme. Enrique
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.