Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:00:27 01/30/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 2000 at 06:58:41, Alvaro Polo wrote: >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 > >This is an interesting comment. Your partner Schroeder obviously must disagree >with comp-comp and comp-humans being essentially the same thing or he wouldn't >have made Rebel 10.c taking away knowledge. > >Of course you know much more than me about computer chess but, for example, it >is interesting that the main difference between DB1 and DB2 was not ply depth >(100MNPS vs 200MNPS), but the added knowledge from GM Benjamin. They did this >because either they believed in diminishing returns from additional plies when >playing against Kasparov or because they didn't believe thay they could hit >another ply deeper, had they chosen to concentrate on depth instead of on >knowledge. > >Alvaro I don't believe it had anything to do with diminishing returns. I think the DB guys just decided that speed alone was not going to do the job, and that in addition to the huge speed, they needed knowledge to go along with it. I guarantee you that if they built a DB-3, it would be much faster, and go deeper, because I don't think that they, any more than some of the rest of us, believe that another ply doesn't help, after so far..
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.