Author: Stephen A. Boak
Date: 02:13:19 04/28/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 28, 2001 at 03:29:46, Uri Blass wrote: >On April 28, 2001 at 02:08:00, Stephen A. Boak wrote: > >>On April 28, 2001 at 01:52:01, Stephen A. Boak wrote: >> >><snip> >> >>>This may indicate, for example, that there are relatively as many win, loss & >>>draw nodes, generally speaking, at each fixed ply depth, no matter how many >>>plies are calculated--even if those results are not precisely calculatable by >>>the program! Therefore the program that calculates x plies more than its >>>opponent will have approx the same increased chances to steer toward the >winning lines. [I hope you can understand the concept I am trying to >communicate.] >> >>I mean that the general percentage of calculated win nodes, arrived at by >>calculating to a fixed N+X depth, which are *not* seen by calculating only to N >>depth, may be approximately the same no matter what N is. At least during the >>opening & middle games. > >I do not believe that it is so simple. !!! You may be right. I am speculating, of course. But I have a mathematical notion behind this idea that I am still grappling with. I may try to make it more crisp and present it at a later time, when I understand it more and see better how to present it. > >I believe that there are positions when program A understands better than >program B and if program A is lucky to get them then 10 plies may win against 15 I certainly agree with this possibility. Programs are not the same, not equal in 'understanding'--in knowing what to prune or extend, in knowing how to relatively evaluate and balance the many competing material & positional factors, including king safety. I believe the balancing act is a nearly infinite continuum--relative material & positional values change from position to position, and there are many, many different kinds of positions. Because traditional programs are relatively 'fixed' and inflexible, with regard to relative values used in scoring varied node positions, there is an infinite opportunity to design better terms and weights, even to make them flexible and capable of changing as circumstances on the board evolve. >plies but 5 plies does not win against 10 plies because 5 plies does tactical >mistakes that are decisive. > >There are mistakes when some programs may do even at depth 15 when other >programs may avoid them at depth 10. Interestingly, your data (with my rating calculations) shows the same amount of mistakes are uncovered, ply by ply, over a series of 5 different ply deltas. That suggests that my current theory may be correct (since there is not yet any diminishing return). > >I expect to see more wins for the weaker side at higher depthes because of this >reason. > >Unfortunately the depths that I played are not big enough and doing a match at >depth 10 against depth 15 may take a long time and I expect average of at least >some hours per game even after upgrading my hardware. > > >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.