Author: stuart taylor
Date: 17:08:25 02/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 11, 2000 at 13:34:14, Albert Silver wrote: >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 I think that re. the famous position with Rebel and his bishop trapped in could possibly be different with a ply or two deeper. Of course it must be combined with knowledge to be applied to what it is seeing. But I beleive that other programs would avoid such things because it will sense the lack of power in the resulting position even without knowing the reason for it. But besides that, I didn't realize that the original poster was speaking about plies vs. knowledge. He said "but if there is a falloff somewhere"etc. That sounds like something else. By the way, I would be interested to know if anyone agrees with my rational above. Stuart Taylor
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.