Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:31:39 11/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 23, 2001 at 10:57:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. I do not see a reason to assume that intuitively there is diminishing return if you play the program against itself when you have not diminishing returns when you play with different programs. Suppose that you have a game when half of the positions A does not understand and half of the positions B does not understand. At small depthes tactics is going to dominate so more plies are going to help between A and B. At big depthes in half of the cases A is going to lose the positions that it does not understand and in the second half B is going to lose the positions that it does not understand and you are going to get 50%. The depth is not going to be important because at every depth that is smaller than 30 plies and bigger than 10 plies the program that does not understand the position is not going to have enough depth to solve the problem by search. 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.