Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: About diminishing returns (Uri)

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 07:57:08 11/23/01

Go up one level in this thread


On November 23, 2001 at 03:45:35, Uri Blass wrote:

>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

The math suggests it is true.  If the _only_ thing that is different between
player (A) and player (B) is one ply of search, then going from 19-20 is less
of a change than going from 4-5.  It is possible that even this is not true,
of course, but intuitively it should be so.  And it is possible that
diminishing returns happens for any combination of programs and depths, but I
(so far) don't believe it.  At least for the next 10 years or so.  I believe
every ply will help.



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.