Author: Bella
Date: 12:25:40 11/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 18, 1999 at 17:46:36, KarinsDad wrote: >On November 18, 1999 at 16:38:41, Bella Freud wrote: > >[snip] >> >>I think there is a counter to your argument about this. >> >>I agree that with a sequence >> >>a x b y c z d >> >>that if d is a bad move that only manifests itself over the horizon, then it is >>dangerous to have backed that best line and score back to the root. >> >>If d loses then there is a danger that a loses. >> >>The shorter the line the greater the danger and the longer the line the less the >>danger, since side 'a' can deviate from b,c,d,e,f,g,h in the move sequence. >> >>Or, that the deeper the line, the less chance there is that the position at d is >>so important, thus causing a to lose. >> >>Depth therefore helps bad evaluation functions to play better chess, in the >>sense that search applied at the next few moves allows for escapes from the >>consequent trouble. Such a system is just playing obstructionist chess. >> >> >>Bella >> > >Yes, but wouldn't that imply that all programs play obstructionist chess until >we get to the level that chess is solved (or up to the point that they hit the >tablebases)? Au naturelle. I imply just that. Well spotted. > >In other words, trouble for most programs can come in one of three basic ways: >loss of game, loss of material, loss of positional factor (regardless of whether >the program is able to determine that). So, no matter how far you search and no >matter how good your evaluation is, there will always be a horizon effect. This >in turn implies that any program within any given game could always be walking >towards a cliff and not know it, Exactament. just due to the peculiarities of the given >game/position and although a program (just like a human) might be capable of >avoiding a given cliff once it comes within view, even the act of avoiding it >may and most likely will be sending the game towards another cliff (i.e. the >positional/material factors of the game may have a great likelihood of resulting >in many cliffs or landmines in a given direction, not just one). My words exactly. Except I would not have used "most likely" because the deeper the search the "less likely". > >KarinsDad :) Bella :)
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.