Author: Andrew Dados
Date: 11:41:32 05/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 25, 2000 at 12:42:22, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On May 24, 2000 at 18:00:12, Robert Hyatt 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'. > >It is better than nothing. Up until now, we didn't really have any good data >for any program. It is interesting to know that Elo increase doesn't *have* to >be linear due to some natural law or something. > >bruce For program with unknown source there is always some 'doubt'. Lets assume its eval produces a very limited set of scores (which is true for root processors, but also for programs with full, but simple eval). Now: the smaller set of scores, the smaller chance of getting new best move based on positional factors. Also some dirty pruning/speeding techniques, like shifting score up at root to blur out small score differences, or assigning a value to null move (shifting alpha) will produce nice speedup, but at the cost of reduced 'positional granularity'. What we can say after Ernsts experiment is: "Some unknown factors can produce diminishing returns". Not much, imo. -Andrew-
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.