Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: In chess we will reach diminishing returns just like in Checckers 1

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 06:28:12 10/29/03

Go up one level in this thread


On October 29, 2003 at 09:01:28, Anthony Cozzie wrote:

>On October 29, 2003 at 04:47:31, Daniel Clausen wrote:
>
>>On October 29, 2003 at 03:15:23, Jorge Pichard wrote:
>>
>>>"Experiments in Chinook show that there comes a point where increased search
>>>depth provides diminishing returns."
>>
>>Many chess programmers agree that the search- and the eval- part of an engine
>>have to be tuned so they work optimal together. (like you can throw out certain
>>parts in the eval since they're now covered with a better/faster search etc)
>>
>>Now you take an engine, which is optimized for todays hardware to reach a
>>certain depth in typical middlegame positions and make the experiment of
>>increasing search depth. Why can't the effect of "diminishing returns" not be
>>explained by the fact that search and eval are no longer working together
>>optimal?
>>
>>It seems to me that in all these experiments which try to prove the effect of
>>deminishing returns, the errors bars are bigger than the effect they want to
>>prove.
>>
>>Sargon
>
>One experiment that both Hyatt and Heinz did was to run their programs through a
>"deep" (14 ply) search and record the frequency of new moves, that is, what % of
>the time the program changed its mind.  Their conclusion was that we still
>haven't reached the point of diminishing returns.  Of course, this was some time
>ago, and evals/pruning/extensions/etc have all improved since then . . .
>
>anthony

You cannot get that conclusion from that data.
The frequency of new moves proves nothing about diminishing returns because
it is possible that at small depth the new moves changes the result and at high
depth they do not change the result.

You can also never get the conclusion that there is no diminishing returns
unless you get the conclusion that there is an increasing returns from time and
the reason is that it is possible that you need more games to prove diminishing
returns.

Uri



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.