Author: Dan Andersson
Date: 18:26:37 11/22/01
Go up one level in this thread
>It is anectodal from the perspective I gave... namely that of playing >A vs A (different depths) to extrapolate how A does at increasing depths >against _anybody_. > I have to agree, but in its own context it would be called substantiated. The context or contexts of the different points of your posting was, IMO ambiguous. That's why i posted the factoid in return. I hope someone with more time in hand makes a similar test, in regards to accuracy and reliability. Many obstacles to generalisation to A B matches when A neq B exist. The internal definition of ply is one. Different extensions strategies is another. Bugs that occur rarely but wastes good play, or are a function of depth being a prime or generally a function of depth ... etc. It might even be that diminished returns between two different programs is dependent on too many factors to be measured reliably. One criterion that ought to be fulfilled before trying to find diminishing returns between two different programs. One that needs to be there, is that both programs show diminishing return in self play testing. I cannot give a valid reason right now. But I have a hunch that it might be an almost necessary prerequisite. Any thoughts? MvH Dan Andersson
This page took 0.01 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.