Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 06:54:05 10/30/03
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 . . . This experiment was imperfect of course, most likely driven by a desire to publish without having done proper research. 'new moves' don't need to be better. basically it was just the odd/even depth considerations and in many positions more than 1 move are equally good after which odd/even searchline depths are very important as a decision factor. Any chess knowledge to take a look at the positions was not used at all. Already a lot better are the experiments performed by Don Dailey who clearly showed that evaluation quality is more important than extra search depth at these depths and later investigations done after this phenomena. Note that Heinz was involved in those later investigations and concluded the opposite of the Crafty goes deep experiment. >anthony
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.