Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 20:32:43 09/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 15, 2000 at 03:11:22, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 14, 2000 at 13:42:49, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>In the upcoming Rebel Century 3.0 I have implemented a little >>statistic routine that reveals something about the nature of SEARCH >>that could be important for the future of computer chess in the sense >>that it says "something" one may expect in the near future because >>of faster and faster PC's. >> >>Research on this issue have already been done by Bob and Ernst and >>it has made me curious so I have spend a little time on it. The >>statistic shows 2 things: >> >>a) number of fail-low's for each depth; >>b) number of "changed moves" for each depth. >> >>(a) is not so important as often fail-low's do not mean anything but I >>wanted to know anyway. >> >>(b) is extremely important as it shows for each depth how many times >>Rebel changed its mind. As you can see in the below statistic the % >>diminish and diminish the deeper Rebel goes. >> >>How to read the overview: >>- first column: iteration depth; >>- second column: number of times the depth was reached; >>- third column: number of fail-low's; >>- fourth column: percentage of fail-low's; >>- Fifth column: number of changed moves; >>- Last column: percentage of changed moves; > >1)I think that the interesting question is if there is a diminishing return from >time and not if there is a diminishing return from plies. > >I think that the following data may be interesting when you use fixed time of >2^n seconds per move(you can choose n) >column 1:number of changed moves between 1 seconds and 2 seconds >column 2:number of changed moves between 2 seconds and 4 seconds >column 3:number of changed moves between 4 seconds and 8 seconds > >column n:number of changed moves between 2^(n-1) seconds and 2^n seconds You're using a power of 2 here to measure where the branching factor hardly will have a power of 2, so you're falsifying research by using time measurements using a power of 2. Of course the whole idea to measure principle variation changes i find complete nonsense in advance, but if you measure it, then measure plydepth based, not second based! >2)You can use the same idea without fixed time in normal games when you have >also column for the number of cases that you used at least 2,4,8...seconds but >in this case I expect the last column to have relatively more changes because >you use more time when you fail low and the small number of cases are not random >positions. > >In this case column 1 should be read like this: >The number of changed moves between 1 seconds and 2 seconds out of the cases >that you used at least 2 seconds. > >In this case there should be also more columns of the number of cases that you >used at least 2 seconds(4,8,...). > >Uri
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.