Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Experiment: Search depth and ratings

Author: Christophe Drieu

Date: 02:20:46 07/31/02

Go up one level in this thread


On July 31, 2002 at 04:43:51, Uri Blass wrote:

>On July 31, 2002 at 02:14:50, Russell Reagan wrote:
>
>>Has anyone done any experiments where they took a simple program and computed
>>ratings for different levels of search? I was thinking it might be interesting
>>to do this experiment, but I figured if someone has done this before it would
>>save me the trouble.
>>
>>I was thinking about creating a simple alpha-beta engine with mainly material
>>evaluation, and perhaps some other small things like a piece-square table, and
>>maybe a bonus for castling. That would seem to help the program do things that
>>even beginners do, if for no other reason than they were taught to "control the
>>center" and "castle early". The main reason for adding those two things would be
>>so the program wouldn't be deciding on 1. h3 just because it was the first move
>>searched and the material evaluations all came up even.
>>
>>My goal here is to compute ratings for various depths of search when using
>>(basically) material only evaluation. I would like to know, for example, how far
>>you could expect to get as a human player if you were able to catch all tactics
>>and combinations at a depth of 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on. I have heard people say
>>that a human can get to expert level (2000) by mastering tactics, and I would
>>guess they also know enough positional knowledge to get by.
>
>I believe that programs can get to expert level
>and even more than it by only piece square table
>and depth 13+extensions and pruning of normal
>chess programs(no knowledge about castling is needed)
>
>It does not mean that humans can do it because
>they cannot see everything about tactics.
>
>I agree that humans can get to 2000 level
>by mastering tactics but it does not mean that
>they have no knowledge about passed pawns or
>weak pawns or mobility or king safety.
>
>They may not have more positional knowledge
>than 1600 players but the knowledge of 1600 players
>is more than piece square table.
>
>Uri

what do you call "piece square table", please ?



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.