Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Nodes per second........

Author: Christophe Theron

Date: 18:25:11 10/01/98

Go up one level in this thread


On October 01, 1998 at 17:54:48, Jim Phillips wrote:

>On October 01, 1998 at 08:25:15, Roberto Waldteufel wrote:
>
>>
>>On September 28, 1998 at 11:28:42, Peter Fendrich wrote:
>>
>(snip)
>>
>>>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
>
>I'd like to throw in my 2 cents....  If you choose a move at random from
>the "leaf" nodes, you are going to tend to return to a root move that
>generates a "bushier branch".  Let's say you have three possible root
>moves, and you search two plies deep and choose a move at random.  If
>there are 10 "leaves" corresponding to the 1st root move, 20 leaves
>corresponding to the 2nd root move, and 70 leaves for the 3rd root move,
>there is a 70% chance that your random function will choose the 3rd root,
>which is the one that will also lead you to a more open position with a
>lot of possible moves to make.  The program that simply chooses a move at
>the root at random has only a 33 1/3 % chance of picking the 3rd root....
>Does this seem reasonable, or am I off around Jupiter?
>-Jim Phillips

You are absolutely right. The random evaluation in fact turned out to be a way
to find the moves that lead to more mobility.

Both programs were able to find shallow mates. This was not the issue here.


    Christophe



This page took 0.03 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.