Author: Tony Werten
Date: 03:29:42 02/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 08, 2002 at 05:55:10, Wylie Garvin wrote: >On February 06, 2002 at 20:08:04, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On February 06, 2002 at 19:14:43, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On February 06, 2002 at 18:54:28, Sune Fischer wrote: >>>[snip] >>>>I'm not saying that it would be easy to get all those test positions, but if you >>>>had them the test would be nice. >>>>I suppose one could do a 14 ply search as an approximation to the best move, it >>>>wouldn't change the distribution all that much I think. >>> >>>The problem (as I see it) of running test suites with only ce answers is that >>>the chess engine will [not infrequently] find a better solution or another >>>solution which is marked as "wrong" by the program looking for an answer. >>> >>>If you have not traced all the way to checkmate, then the best answer is not >>>certain. >> >> >>Listen, the idea is very simple :) >> >>A) We have X positions where we _know_ the best move. >>(of cause we can discuss how to get such a set of positions, but that wasn't >>really the point here, it is an *assumtion*, a mind/thought experiment if you >>will :) >> >>B) Run the engine brute force limitet to n ply. >>This will produce the previous posted distribution. >> >>C) How to interpret this distribution: >>The 1-ply searcher will often pick the right move, but for the *wrong* reasons >>in the sense that it cannot see the deeper tacticks. >>My point is, that this does not matter, because it will still play the *right* >>move! Pure luck, but that is okay. >>So the distribution should IMO reflect the chances of *being lucky*. >>The deeper you search, the more often you will pick the right move. >>Remember that even a 12 ply search is still making a guess at the right move >>just as the 1 ply searcher did, but more often the 12-ply'er guesses right. >> >>I haven't got any idea as to how fast the distribution converges or what kind of >>distribution we might be talking about, but interesting to find out I think. >> >>-S. > >It seems likely to me that if everyone who has posted in this thread had simply >read the paper ( http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/junghanns97diminishing.html ), they >would agree that Schaeffer and his smart pals have it figured out. <grin> Read it and it's exactly what I disagree with. Tony > >wylie
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.