Author: Albert Silver
Date: 23:00:09 02/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 12, 2000 at 01:38:02, Vincent Vega wrote:
>On February 11, 2000 at 20:32:31, Albert Silver wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>No, I read it right here, maybe about a month ago. Sorry, I don't remember
>who's doing it, maybe somebody else does. I hope the results will be posted
>here or published.
>
>>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.
>
>Are you sure? I'm not. In fact I've seen arguments that CSTAL gains more with
>increased time than fast searchers.
Not increased time, increased plies. Knowledge vs. speed. If a program knows
nothing except the material values, then it can only reside on tactics as it
depends on its calculations to reach any conclusive decision. In other words it
must actually see a side losing or winning something to calculate an advantage,
meaning that most of its decisions are completely random, right? Now add just
one element of knowledge and provided the knowledge is correctly balanced with
the material values, the decision will become that much less random for the
positons where the knowledge is applied. This becomes increasingly true for each
and every scrap of correct and properly balanced knowledge placed in the eval
function. Now, let's get back to that extra ply (not time). Our program
MindBlank has calculated 10 plies, and thus requires every ply it can get to try
to make its decision that much less random. On the other hand we have CyberGM
who truly knows what's going on, and at 10 plies already has a solid decision on
what the next move should be and whose 11th ply, short of showing a forced
material win. That's why more knowledge is the only way to go, but it must be
done carefully or it can be just as much of a problem as the solution it is
supposed to provide.
Albert Silver
>
>Yes, there are a lot of complications and I could be wrong. But I think this
>experiment could start answering some questions (and posing new ones).
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.