Author: Graham Laight
Date: 08:53:14 07/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 2000 at 10:47:43, Ed Schröder wrote: >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. Sometimes, you need to look at extremes to work out what's really happening. For example, if you look at a graph of drinking alcohol VS cases of cirrhosis of the liver by country in Europe, there is apparently no clear trend - until you add France, which, by sitting well to the top right (drink lots of alcohol, get lots of the disease), clearly shows the strong correlation. In this instance, the case that strongly shows the trend is the human chess player. Lots of knowledge, but, by comparison with computers, negligable NPS. This leads us to 3 possibilities: * Humans have super-huge levels of knowledge - far more than we had realised * The elo benefits of extra knowledge are not logarithmic, as the benefits of extra speed are * There's something entirely different going on in the human brain which we haven't considered here -g >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.