Author: Vincent Vega
Date: 13:36:10 02/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 13, 2000 at 01:15:15, Albert Silver wrote: >It isn't time, it's plies. You said: "I understand that somebody is working on >confirming whether there is a linear ELO increase with ply depth." I read that >as an Elo value for each _ply_. Nope. He is indeed using plies and this is valid when _one_ program is used. But you tried comparing _two_ programs using plies which is no-no. You have to use time to get anything significant >MindBlank, as described, knows only the material values, which as far as >knowledge is concerned, seems to me to be the strict minimum. As such, unless it >reaches a forced material conclusion, extra time will show it nothing, as I >expounded above. An example: Mindblank after 10 plies has not found any forced >win of material for any side. So if it is forced to play now it will take all >the moves it calculated don't lose material, and flip a coin (metaphorically >speaking). If at 12 plies it still has not found any forced material win, then >the same thing will occur. In other words it is absolutely dependant on finding >something at a deeper ply in order to choose a move that is non-random. Not so >for CyberGM. The difference however is that MindBlank should be able to process thousands of positions in the time it takes CyberGM to look at a single position. So the probability that it finds a capture somewhere is much higher. Also even if CyberGM’s evaluation is very good, there will still be a great deal of noise as higher plies are evaluated. BTW, a real minimalist program NoMind would just look for mates and not even worry about all that stupid material :-)
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.