Author: stuart taylor
Date: 18:03:07 02/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 12, 2000 at 20:18:32, Albert Silver wrote:
>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
>
>>I don't have the program, but I beleive you on that.
I thought that a program CAN "feel" what it wasn't programed to actually
understand.
If it looked ahead 10-20 plies, wouldn't it realize that the other side
had the upper hand atleast slightly-compared to if he did a move that would
not close off the bishop?
The evaluation function of rebel is of course at fault, but I don't think
the actual knowledge need be the only thing to enable positionally wise
moves to be made by a computer.
(If you still don't agree,I wonder what Dr. Hyatt would say.)
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.