Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:47:23 01/30/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 2000 at 20:26:33, Christophe Theron wrote: >On January 28, 2000 at 08:51:14, Alvaro Polo wrote: > >>On January 27, 2000 at 13:51:01, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On January 26, 2000 at 18:28:22, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On January 26, 2000 at 18:23:50, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 26, 2000 at 18:10:10, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>IOW, more horsepower is a tough way to make chess programs play better. There >>>>>>is also evidence (according to some) that the increase in speed has >>>>>>*diminishing* returns. Hence, it may take a terahertz to get there. Don't know >>>>>>of any material that could do that, not even a Josephson Junction. >>>>> >>>>>I think it's a great way. You just take a vacation, preferably a long one, and >>>>>when you come back you make one call to Gateway and poof, free Elo points. >>>>> >>>>>Got an article that shows that the Elo curve flattens out with increased depth? >>>> >>>>Darn. I knew someone would ask that! I just read it somewhere, but I will have >>>>to go and look for it now. >>>>:-( >>> >>> >>>Just my 2 cents: this "dimishing returns" theory is an urban legend. >>> >>>You are almost certain to have seen this demonstrated, you'll find people that >>>will tell you they have seen this demonstrated, but you'll eventually find no >>>proof of this. >>> >>>But everybody wants to believe it because it fits so well our common sense. When >>>everybody in a group believes in something, it eventually because "real" for >>>this group. >>> >>>Computer chess is CROWDED with legends like this one. >>> >>>The programmers that do better than their peers are those who do not believe >>>these legends. >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >>I have a question for you. Do you believe that the "diminishing return for each >>extra ply" theory is false for comp-comp only, or also for comp-human? >> >>Alvaro > > >I make no difference (well almost) between comp-comp and comp-human. > >I don't believe that "dimishing returns" is of any pratical use for us. In >theory there must be dimishing returns if you can search until the end of the >game, in pratice it will have no influence on the way we program a computer to >play chess. > > > Christophe I think diminishing returns might be an issue vs humans. Because obviously deeper searches never hurt a computer, but they can and do hurt humans, as the STM memory of the human brain is not infinite in size. IE I think that as the computer goes deeper and deeper, it will eventually reach a depth beyond which the human just can't see. I don't think we can tell the difference between outsearching our opponent by 5 plies or 10 plies. Either is a crushing advantage. Against computers, that extra ply will always be worth something.
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.