Author: Albert Silver
Date: 10:34:14 02/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 11, 2000 at 09:08:28, stuart taylor wrote:
>On February 11, 2000 at 08:47:46, Albert Silver wrote:
>
>>On February 11, 2000 at 08:34:16, Vincent Vega wrote:
>>
>>>I understand that somebody is working on confirming whether there is a linear
>>>ELO increase with ply depth. If this indeed proves to be the case (as earlier
>>>results show), the slow searchers will get the same benefit with the increase of
>>>processor speed as the fast searchers. On the other hand, if there is a falloff
>>>somewhere, watch out for CSTAL, etc. They will rule in a couple years.
>>
>>I don't see how anyone could confirm a linear ELO increase with ply depth unless
>>a large amount of games were played with limited depths against human players.
>>Unless you are talking about computer-computer games where the effect is far
>>more decisive.
>>
>
>What's the rationale behind the possibility that greater depth may not
>necesarily result in better decisions over the board?
> Do you mean brute force vs. selective search, or great depth branching off a
>very limited ply count? (which is like very selective search with good pruning)
>S.Taylor
My tactics are most certainly limited by the moves I choose to analyze and how
deeply I choose to analyze them, but that's just the tactics. My positional
play, my plans, my understanding of the position will not be changed because I
saw a ply deeper. If I realize that in position X an exchange of the queens and
one pair of rooks will result in a possibly won endgame, I don't see how seeing
even 10 extra plies will make up for that. That's knowledge, and a ply here or a
ply there won't outweigh it. Look at that famous position of Rebel where it had
its bishop locked in. Do you think that it will suddenly see the problem because
it is calculating a bit deeper?
Albert Silver
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.