Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 02:45:55 05/15/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 14, 1999 at 15:40:52, Timothy J. Frohlick wrote: There have been a couple of articles on this point in ICCAJ. Both of them suggested that a program searching to depth 14 will find a different best move to the one it found when searching to depth 13 a significant proportion of time. These experiments were done by Hyatt & Newborn in 1997 and Ernst Heinz in 1998. The references are: Heinz, E.A. DarkThought Goes Deep ICCA Journal Volume 21 No 4 Hyatt, R.M and Newborn, M.M Crafty Goes Deep ICCA Journal Volume 20 No 2 Hope this is helpful. Andrew >I'm no mathematician but when you have a decision tree with many outcomes and >you choose a particular path then the outcome is always contingent on unexpected >events. > >We have all heard that grandmasters might say that they only look at a few moves >and choose "the right move". This is a "good enough" ploy and is found in most >decision making; both animal and human. > >Going for a hike in the Alaskan wilderness can be most frustrating if you don't >know what you are getting into. Fighting the underbrush is exhausting. >Similarly, getting into tactical complications with a computer only works if you >can compute to 40 ply. If you are in the brambles and you know that you will be >there for another 50 miles then you will do what it takes to get through. If >you get hit by lightning or mauled by a bear that is a different story. > >The point is.... Chess is often won by unexpected but sound move combinations. >The goal is to unbalance a position and lead your opponent into a risky venture >while you are planning your own. Whoever can program a computer to do this may >become a very rich man/woman.
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.