Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 01:40:18 11/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 02, 2003 at 09:51:13, Ratko V Tomic wrote: >> I hold up the chess truth that more depth will >> always be advantageous. > ^^^^^^ > >Problems with "always": Thanks for the reply. > >1. That depends on what is being traded off for > the depth gain. If the quality of the final > evaluation is sacrificed too much, the strength > may decrease when you raise depth and evaluate > more poorly. You see how inexact speech is. With 'chess truth' I was arguing outside of CC. ;) In CC it's clear that you can't have the problems of the general blindness (beyond a particular depth) disappear into thin air. BTW that is to me the best proof for the incredible nonsense that lies in the claim that machines (after the many draws in show matches) are already on the height of the best human GM... On the other hand it takes time to prepare against such machines. GM are unwilling to change their 'human' chess, or you could also say, they are being paid exactly for that unwillingness because otherwise one could engage Eduard Nemeth [Elo 2150!!], but then nobody would show interest. So please change 'incredible nonsense' into 'marvelous business idea'. You're welcome. > E.g. Hiarcs often plays better at > depth 1 (i.e. it plays with pure high quality > root evaluator) than many other programs with > depth 3-4. So if Hiarcs were to drop its quality > of evaluation to increase the depth to match the > depth of the simpler programs, its strength would drop. This is no objection to the general truth. It just shows what is technically feasible. In the end 'depth 1 play' could be taken to imply 'intelligent almost human play'. (As long nothing really has to be calculated yet.) > >2. In addition to evaluation quality/depth trade-ff, > merely showing that program changed its mind in > 1.2% cases when increasing the depth from 20 to 21 > plies, doesn't mean that the new move was stronger > in all 1.2% of cases (e.g. just add the percentages to > say, depth 5, and you are already to 118%, which means > some moves get discarded then picked again at greater > depth, hence some depth increases had picked worse > choice than their shallower predecessors). You make a good explanation of what I wanted to express. 'These' numbers don't mean anything or they mean almost everything. So a good base to talk nonsense. > >3. It is conceivable that the increase of the "evaluation noise" > with greater depth may at some depth _range_ make a particular > program play worse than the same program at lower depths. > (Obviously, this negative gain range would eventually turn > around to positive since the further increase in depth can > reach the true, or at least high accuracy, terminal positions > in sufficient percentages to offset the increased noise > in the remaining cases.) If we could implement smartness we could tell the program to go as deep as the chess position requires. That would mean machines could play human chess. But they can't. Rolf
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.