Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:57:43 10/05/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 04, 2001 at 21:47:46, Christophe Theron wrote:
>On October 04, 2001 at 17:15:18, Francesco Di Tolla wrote:
>
>>Neglecting the proablby important (bu not easy to interpret) effect of the
>>different CPU models, this is actually perfectly logic:
>>
>>Junior is a fast searcher and shredder has more knowledge.
>>
>>The faster the hardware that less important the extra search depth!
>>If you can reach say 20% more knodes this are a given amount of plys at a speed
>>an less plys at higher speed due to the nonlinear growth.
>>
>>So what's wrong?
>
>
>
>What's wrong is that if search tends to be less effective with increasing speed,
>actually "knowledge" (probably meaning "evaluation" in your mind) has exactly
>the same problem.
>
>In chess, Search <=> Knowledge
>
>I believe in dimishing returns from improved search, and I also believe in
>dimishing returns from improved knowledge ("improved evaluation").
>
>
> Christophe
I do not believe in diminishing returns from improved knowledge.
The opposite.
I believe in increasing returns from improved knoweldge.
I think that doing the next experiment may be interesting(I suggest it for tiger
but it can be also done with other programs):
1)Generate a clearly weaker version of tiger by changing only the evaluation to
only material evaluation+some small positinal scores for the piece square tables
The weaker tiger is not going to know nothing about passed pawns or double pawns
2)play matches at fixed depthes between the original tiger and the weaker tiger
and get rating for both tigers
I believe that you are going to find bigger difference in rating between the
tigers at big depthes.
My example is extreme example but I think that we can learn to guess from
extreme example about the practical cases.
The problem is that in the practical cases the difference in evaluation is
relatively small so we may need too many games to prove that you are wrong.
I did not suggest only material evaluation because I am afraid that the only
material evaluation is always going to lose so we cannot learn much from it but
I believe that only material +some small scores for piece square table may be
enough for the weak tiger at depth 10 to beat the original tiger at depth 3 or
4.
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.