Author: Albert Silver
Date: 21:54:13 10/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 2000 at 15:28:50, Ratko V Tomic wrote:
>>I disagree.
>
>I think we're weighing differently what we consider typical position, each has
>in mind different sample. As you point out, different causes (diminishing
>returns, evaluation errors, position symmetry, quiet vs active positions, etc)
>act in opposite direction in how they amplify or attenuate the 1 ply difference.
>
>Although I agreee that current style programs may be nearing the diminishing
>returns region in deepening the brute-force search, I was talking about some
>future more advanced algorithms which will push that region farther. I.e. the
>point I was making is that the more advanced (far sighteed, not in the brute
>force sense) the program, the greater difference it will see from 1 ply
>difference.
Perhaps the problem is this: you believe the nature of the diminishing returns
of further depths (1 ply) is inherent to the programs' ignorance. In other
words, the reason its evaluation doesn't show a greater difference from that
extra ply is because the program is ignorant. I believe otherwise. I believe it
is inherent to the game of chess. I believe there is no forced win to chess, and
that in fact there are many times many paths to a perfect draw. That has been
the direction opening theory has been taking us, and that is the destination I
believe we will ultimately reach. Therefore I believe that the diminishing
effects will persist. I think you can take one of those dead equal opening
positions I mentioned and give it to one of today's programs to ponder for a
year, and it will give nothing special (except some spectacularly long lines
showing why neither side has anything forcible in it's favor), and then give it
to a new super-duper program and it will not find any improvement. In a sense,
the so-called 'bean counting' approach, much despised by Chris Wittington, makes
perfect sense in a sense. If no means can be found to forcibly increase the
advantage, then plant the deepest trap safely possible, and hope the opponent
trips over it. The nature of that trap can be quite subtle BTW, but I do not
think that in the long run one can force that extra ply to yield a win for
White, and that is why we are witnessing the phenomenon of diminishing returns
in the first place.
>
>To use your metaphor, my point there was that a more advanced program will be a
>more sensitive amplifier. That is a separate issue of whether there is much
>difference to amplify to begin with in any given position and what is the
>"typical" position, what is the sample. Whatever the initial difference is, the
>more sensitive amplifier you use the greater the output difference, or in my
>terms, the more advanced, far sighted program is the more evaluation asymmetry
>it will exhibit for 1 ply initial difference (in addition to other visual
>asymmetries of a position).
>
>To put this back in the context of the original discussion, if I am looking at a
>new program with a performance within the top few, Gambit Tiger for example, one
>indicator that we're dealing with a new kind of algorithms, the more advanced
>species of chess programs, would be larger than typical asymmetry in its
>position status display.
I don't think it is assymetrical at all. I think it just attacks better due to
better attacking algorithms and an aggressively tuned eval when certain
conditions for a potential attack are met. I also think its success is also in
part due to tremendous tactical ability that often matches or surpasses its
opponents' even when against superior hardware. The fact that this leads to more
entertaining games is all the better for us of course. :-)
Albert
>A top program which is merely a technically more
>refined version of the current brute force prgrams would not increase noticably
>(if at all) the asymmetry. For such program I wouldn't expect to improve much in
>the next release.
>
>But if I see a top program which also shows atypically large evaluation
>asymmetry, I would be alerted, maybe this is the early scout of the new species
>which will, within a year or two, drive the current style programs into
>extinction. Like with genetic mutations (or the hi-tech hype du jour) although
>most novelties are worthless flash in a pan, the rise of a new advanced species
>always begins with a novelty.
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.