Author: Albert Silver
Date: 08:23:59 01/16/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 16, 2006 at 00:25:03, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On January 15, 2006 at 23:21:31, Albert Silver wrote:
>
>>>But in general, deeper search is stronger than shallower search, all else being
>>>equal.
>>
>>Reading this threw me off on a funny tangent, because in my mind I automatically
>>added "until it makes no difference", meaning that if a possible path to victory
>>or draw exists from a certain position, it will be found. So if a 70-ply deep
>>engine could find all the right moves, then a 75-ply deep engine would make no
>>difference.
>>
>>Anyhow, I then wondered whether the phenomenon of diminishing returns wasn't in
>>fact the ultimate sign that perfect chess is ultimately a draw. After all, if
>>chess was ultimately a big 1-0 then greater depth and precision (drawing closer
>>to this perfect win) should lead to more wins and losses and not less, no?
>>
>> Albert
>
>
>Interesting thought. Although you are thinking straight line, when it might be
>a curve that first flattens for a long while appearing to be settling in on a
>draw score, but going even deeper suddenly accelerates the curve back toward
>winning again...
Yes, I had thought of something like this but on a slightly different line: that
the paths to absolute victory (should it exist) are extremely few, thus the
greater number of draws are related to the genuinely drawn nature of that
majority.
>
>But I would not be surprised if it ended up as a dead draw with perfect play.
>Although when you think about the game, one simple tempi ought not be enough to
>win, if the world is fair. :)
Still, I agree and personally believe that with perfect play on both sides, a
draw would be the result.
Albert
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.