Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Rating Points and Evaluation Function

Author: Miguel A. Ballicora

Date: 15:26:06 05/21/02

Go up one level in this thread


On May 21, 2002 at 18:25:14, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>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.