Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:25:14 05/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 21, 2002 at 17:35:54, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 21, 2002 at 16:26:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 20, 2002 at 14:47:24, Eric Baum wrote: >> >>> >>>OK then: >>>(1) How much have computer programs benefitted from additional >>>features? Remove all additional features from the top programs >>>except material/piece-square table, and how many rating points would you lose? >>>I'm guessing less than 100, but do you have another estimate? >> >>No idea. For Crafty, all improvements over the last 3+ years have >>been _exclusively_ in the evaluation. I haven't changed the search >>at all... >> >> >>> >>>(2) Are there any programs with significant ability to discover new >>>features, or are essentially all the features programmed in by hand. >>>If you believe there are programs that discover useful new features, >>>how many rating points do you think they have gained? >>>And can you give me some idea of what type of algorithm was used? >> >>You are talking about "learning" as humans do it (discover new features). >>I don't know of _any_ program that does this. Some use pre-defined features, >>but twaddle with the weights associated with them. But that is very crude >>in comparison to human learning. >> >> >> >>> >>>Also, for comparison, does anybody have a recent estimate of rating >>>point gain per additional ply of search? >> >>50-70 seems to be current value... has been for years too... > >50-70 is the advantage for doubling the speed of the computer but programs have >brancing factor that is bigger than 2 so it means more than 50-70 per additional >ply. > >Uri Sorry... You are correct. My branching factor is around 3.0, which means that 1 doubling would get me less than a ply. two doublings more than a ply. Perhaps 100 would have been a better number...
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.