Author: Uri Blass
Date: 00:45:35 11/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 22, 2001 at 22:50:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 22, 2001 at 21:26:37, Dan Andersson wrote: > >>>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 > > >Something tells me that for A vs A, there _must_ be a diminishing return, >because all that changes is the depth. But in A vs B, the search depth is just >one difference between the two players. > >I _always_ find positions where another ply (or another N plies) would find >the right move... I do not understand why do you think that in A vs A there must be a diminishing returns. Is it the situation in all the other games? Uri
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.