Author: Albert Silver
Date: 17:18:32 02/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 12, 2000 at 20:08:25, stuart taylor wrote:
>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?
>>
>
> 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.
Rebel is a computer program you know. I've never heard of a program feeling
anything, much less doing something without having been programmed for it. As
for the trapped bishop, I'm afraid not even 20 plies will do it. Don't take my
word for it though, try it. Run the next 10 moves once the bishop was trapped,
and see what Rebel Century says. Either the program can see it because the
knowledge is in it, or it can't.
Albert Silver
> 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.