Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 07:47:43 07/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 2000 at 10:22:20, Graham Laight wrote: >On July 19, 2000 at 10:10:04, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>On July 19, 2000 at 08:40:12, Graham Laight wrote: >> >>>On July 18, 2000 at 18:17:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>We have several copies of Junior (and others) running on ICC, including more >>>>than one deep junior. I have seen GM players achieve these kinds of attacks >>>>in very fast games... Where the GM has little time to think and has to >>>>'intuit' everything. And intuit they do... >>>> >>>>There are many positions search won't solve. There are many positions that >>>>evaluation won't solve. There is room for both in a chess engine, and _both_ >>>>are important when playing players at the top level of chess... >>> >>>I don't think that this is proven. >>> >>>Programmers have historically found that they reap greater dividends with speed >>>than they do with knowledge, so they have mainly been going down the speed >>>route. >> >>There is a lot of truth in that. >> >>>However, if, instead of going down the speed route, the same amount of effort >>>and learning had gone into the knowledge route (e.g. learning how to build large >>>quantities of knowledge in a systematic and maintainable way), it may be that >>>knowledge based programs would now be just as strong as speed based programs. >> >>If speed (depth) wasn't such dominant we now would have had more intelligent >>programs searching 2-3 plies less deep. One might wonder which approach would >>be superior in hard elo. My guess is it is search. >> >>Ed > >This might be true. On the other hand, it may be that, beyond a certain >threshold, adding knowledge increases elo at a faster rate - exponential growth >if you like. Maybe. >Even if the growth in ELO as you added knowledge was only arithmetic (= steady) >rather than exponential, this would (if it were true...), be better than search, >where the growth in ELO rating is, roughly, logarithmic. > >I think we know a great deal about the effects of adding speed and nodes per >second. After 20 years I still don't know. It's too complex at least for my brain. >Unfortunately, I don't think we know so much about adding knowledge to the eval. TRUE! In Rebel I have a flexible parameter called [Chess Knowledge = 100]. Setting this value to its maximum (500) Rebel knows a lot more than the default setting (100). Setting the paramater to 500 slows down the progranm with a factor of 4-7 and it definitely perform worse. Setting this value to 25 so far seems to be the best setting as it makes the program much faster. The classic speed_vs_knowledge dilemma in a nutshell. Ed >-g
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.