Author: Roberto Waldteufel
Date: 05:25:15 10/01/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 28, 1998 at 11:28:42, Peter Fendrich wrote: >On September 28, 1998 at 10:41:29, William H Rogers wrote: > >>The only time you should worry is when you newest version starts playing worse >>than your old version. It was once written that if you had a perfect evaluation >>function, you may not have to search deeper than one ply. This may not ever be >>accieved, but the theory is justified. If searching 1,000,000 nodes does not get >>better results than searching on 5,000 then stick with the 5,000. It is after >>all the programs playing strength that counts, not how much it has to search to >>achieve that goal.... >>Bill > >Sure, winning games is better than losing them... :) >Search does in fact have some good effects by itself... >There was an intresesting article in ICCA Journal a few years ago. I don't >remember any details about the authors and such but here is what I remember from >the article. >They played two programs against each other with completely random evaluation. >One program searched the tree, gave the leafs a random evaluation and and backed >up the values in an alfa/beta manner. The other program just gave each move from >the root a random evaluation. The first thoughts about a match like this is that >the result will be as random as the evaluation code, but it wasn't! >The results showed that the tree version was better because of a tendency to get >more space just because of the tree search itself. Well, my memory is fading >here... > >//Peter Maybe the tree version would find shallow mates, and the root version would not? I think this might well account for the difference. Best wishes, Roberto
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.