Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:29:43 07/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 2000 at 11:53:14, Graham Laight wrote: >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. I think there is already ample evidence of this. IE a program like hiarcs, which is very slow, vs a program like fritz, which is very fast. They are pretty much equal overall. There are extremes (a program _too_ slow will make tactical blunders, a program _too_ fast will make positional blunders) but there is a fat "sweet spot" that is quite big (ie a factor of 10 wide, so that 200K vs 20K is fairly equal assuming both are done reasonably well). > >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 I don't believe this is as likely as the hypothesis that humans simply use what knowledge they have _better_... > >* 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 That is almost a certainty. > >-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.