Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 13:45:36 10/05/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 05, 2001 at 07:57:43, Uri Blass wrote:
>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
It would be interesting to do the experiment, but I think it is going to be hard
to prove the point. As hard as proving it for dimishing returns from search
depth.
However if somebody is really interested, I can provide two versions of Tiger:
1) the normal version
2) the same version with a weaker evaluation (as suggested by Uri by removing
the evaluation of passed pawns for example).
Christophe
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.