Author: Francesco Di Tolla
Date: 12:19:39 10/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
>>>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). >> >>Then why not using a pure "bean counter"? This should beat any program just >>because of the extra fraction of a ply it can reach. >> >>regards >>Franz > > > >I don't understand how you can come to this conclusion using what I said... > >I'm not saying that knowledge is useless or that more knowledge cannot beat more >depth, I'm just saying that I believe that there is also dimishing returns from >improved knowledge at deeper ply depths. It's called "reductio ad absurdum": pushing your idea to the extreme side an evaluation function wich just barely counts pieces could ouperform an evaluation function that spends time to "look" at the position, thanks to extra fraction of a ply or some plys. Something nobody would think. This does not imply that the better the evaluation function (at any CPU time cost) ALWAYS the better results. There is a balance at any speed between what "is worth" spending in evaluating and what you "get" more from extra plys. The more CPU time you have the more it seems worth, to me, to inwest in evaluation. Seems so linear. regards Franz
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.