Author: Albert Silver
Date: 17:32:31 02/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 11, 2000 at 17:36:01, Vincent Vega wrote:
>>Unless you are talking about computer-computer games where the effect is far
>>more decisive.
>
>I am.
It's still very complicated even where computers are concerned. I am presuming
this is a project of your own as you did not mention any names of third parties
doing the analysis, in which case I'd like to ask how these conclusions will be
reached. It's very tricky after all. What knowledge is worth how much in terms
of depth of calculation? For example, if I remove some specific pawn code
(doubled pawns for example) and this results in a speed increase that yields 1
ply. Then I test it using specific openings (otherwise the results would be very
difficult to analyze properly due to the random factor) against a same opponent
and examine the results. After this, I calculate the Elo performance of both and
voilà! An Elo worth of the knowledge as opposed to the ply. But is it so simple?
What if the knowledge was estimated (according to these findings) to be worth 50
Elo points? What if this knowledge was in fact more, but only in conjunction
with other knowledge? Thus an individual analysis of 3 important elements of
knowledge each showed to be worth 50 points, when removed revealed themselves
worth 200 Elo points? Then there are the rarer elemements of knowledge that may
only come into play every 10 games or so. In the one game it was applied, this
was the winning factor, yet in the other 9 games where it never occured, this
knowledge was merely a deadweight, so the ply this knowledge cost by all
appearances might have been better applied. Does this mean that this knowledge
is useless? That the ply is proven worthier? Even if this knowledge never even
occured in it's analysis during these 9 games (such as the advantage of a
Rook+Bishop against a Rook+Knight in most endgames), I wouldn't agree, and
furthermore the Elo weight calculated would be utterly meaningless in my
opinion. Not even if it was admitted that this Elo weight were only for
computers, it still wouldn't convince me. Too many unknowns. I realize your post
states the Elo worth of _plys_, but in so doing it implicitly involves the Elo
weight of knowledge as well. Add an 11th ply to a program that knows nothing and
it's importance will be far greater to it than to a program that has a very
large evaluation function. Thus you'd have to understand what each element of
knowledge brought as well. What do you think, Vince?
Albert Silver
This page took 0.01 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.