Author: Uri Blass
Date: 10:34:09 10/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 07, 2001 at 13:11:56, Christophe Theron wrote: >On October 07, 2001 at 02:36:52, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On October 06, 2001 at 21:23:38, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>I was thinking about some linear equivalence between depth and "knowledge" >>>(evaluation), very much like e=mc^2. >>> >>>But this is too far stretched at this time. >>> >>>One basic fact that supports my point is, and I think Bob described the >>>phenomenon himself some time ago, that improving the knowledge (evaluation) of a >>>program is especially needed when the program cannot reach high depths. >>> >>>He talked about this about the older version of Cray Blitz of whatever was >>>before Cray Blitz. >>> >>>I have noticed the same thing, and this is the basis of my belief that there are >>>dimishing returns from improved knowledge. >>> >>>This goes against the already old urban legend saying that "more knowledged >>>programs" (programs with slower evaluations) will be superior on faster >>>computers (which is clearly denied year after year). >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >>I think that it depends on the knowledge and there is knowledge that cannot be >>replaced practically by search depth because you need to search more than 30 >>plies forward. >> >>Suppose that a program that has no knowledge about king safety plays against >>program with knowledge about kingsafety. >> >>At small depth it is not going to be important because tactical mistakes are >>going to dominate and searching 1 ply deeper than the opponent may be more >>important. >> >>At big depthes it is going to be more important because the program with more >>knowledge is going to have enough depth to play for a sound king attack without >>tactical mistakes and 1 ply is not going to help the program without knowledge >>about king safety because there are moves that in order to see that they are bad >>(not for king safety reasons) you need to search at least 30 plies forward. >> >>Uri > > > >...And on the other hand, if you can search 30 plies forward, your knowledge >about king safety is probably going to be useless. The point here is that for the near future you cannot search 30 plies forward.(Even at correspondence time control I get only 20 plies) I talk about the practical case and I believe that in this case knowledge about king safety becomes more important when the depth is bigger. >Because it does not matter if you know how to build a king attack or not, your >opponent can see deep enough anyway to see the consequences just by calculating. I think that there are cases when 30 plies are not going to be enough to see the consequences and you need more than it. > >I don't think it is possible to "solve" this problem by thinking from a theoric >point of view, because you can find extreme examples to support both sides. When I said 30 plies I did not think about an extreme example. 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.