Author: Jorge Pichard
Date: 05:02:39 02/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 12, 2002 at 00:35:11, martin fierz wrote: >aloha! > >there was just a discussion on "diminishing returns" in computer chess here, so >i finally wrote up an experiment i did a year or two ago with my checkers >program on my webpage: http://www.fierz.ch/strategy3.htm >in contrast to an experiment by junghanns and schaeffer (i think?), where they >used chinook to play series of 40 games against itself, i played 282 games per >match, which leads to more reliable statistics - i think the error bar for the >chinook values reported on the page above are about 5%, making the conclusions >of that experiment questionable. >it's much easier to find this kind of effect in computer checkers for two >reasons: >1) the program can search much deeper >2) the "natural length scale" of a checkers game is much shorter than for a >chess game. with this i mean that typically after a certain number of moves, the >program will hit the endgame database, and from there on it will not matter how >deep it searches. this leaves the deeper searching program with a decreasingly >short number of plies where it can use it's superiority. > >my message is: this effect will show up in computer chess too - but it will take >a looong time. > >cheers > martin Yes I agree with you Martin, only when P.C. or MP system get close to the processing capability of Deeper Blue then we can say that we are reaching the effect of diminishing returns. But I feel that chess can still take twice the calculating power of Deeper Blue without reaching its horizon. Jorge
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.