Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 23:29:36 02/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 12, 2000 at 02:00:09, Albert Silver wrote: >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 The difficulty is that by the time CyberGM reaches 10 ply, MindBlank will be way past 10 ply. Null-window searches on material-only would smoke right along. Your example is extreme enough that I would still expect CyberGM to play better chess; I am writing to point out that a generalization will not necessary hold. Even your conjecture, based on ply, is up for some debate. Something that doesn't know much might improve more from an extra ply than something that knows quite a bit. MindBlank at the same search depth as CyberGM will play much worse. As search depth is increased for both, both programs improve, but MindBlank may improve more quickly, simply because there is more room for improvement! Dave
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.