one question about knowledge chess engine match one ply ?

[hgm]

one question about knowledge chess engine match one ply ?

I was thinking of making a thematic party on knowledge, using fixed depth of a ply, another with 3 plys and others with 5 plys. perhaps another with 7 plys. no more that 9 or 11.

I ask:

using a stable depth would Be annulled the advantages of code optimization, code parts that anything has to do with the knowledge, but alone with the gross force and certain dose of luck when selecting many branches...

if we use those low levels of I calculate of plys, we would not find the engines that have a knowledge bigger than the positions and they choose the road but or less correct, or rather, they choose a better road that their rival, although this it is incorrect, depending on the given position.

I will prove it. go to 1 ply. if this is error conceptual i try 3, 5, 7, 9. no more.

no books. too.

The only thing your test will reveal is which engine lies the most about its depth.

[Karmazen & Oliver]

The only thing your test will reveal is which engine lies the most about its depth.

if alone you read the first messages you don't find out of like the party evolves...

independently that some engines tells us lies, when using such a low search filter, you minimize the code optimization and the cpu advantages, giving but importance to strategic concepts and position them, knowledge in chess.

Not alone one has seen clearly that other engines also carries out approach 1~3 plys when we select level 1.... one has also seen as rybka it loses against engines 3~5 years old...

and one has also seen as clearly the different versions evolve...

also, when using that depth, for those that are not GMS, we can understand clearly when the engine makes a mistake and in that position it makes errors..

one has also seen that other many engines has serious bugs in those first selections of movements candidates, these bugs can be dragged to the whole analysis chain, because it is a recursive function ...

in short... ALONE we see what we want to see...

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23549

blind greetings from españa... oliver

[bob]

one question about knowledge chess engine match one ply ?

I was thinking of making a thematic party on knowledge, using fixed depth of a ply, another with 3 plys and others with 5 plys. perhaps another with 7 plys. no more that 9 or 11.

I ask:

using a stable depth would Be annulled the advantages of code optimization, code parts that anything has to do with the knowledge, but alone with the gross force and certain dose of luck when selecting many branches...

if we use those low levels of I calculate of plys, we would not find the engines that have a knowledge bigger than the positions and they choose the road but or less correct, or rather, they choose a better road that their rival, although this it is incorrect, depending on the given position.

I will prove it. go to 1 ply. if this is error conceptual i try 3, 5, 7, 9. no more.

no books. too.

The only thing your test will reveal is which engine lies the most about its depth.

[Bill Rogers]

When I first got involved with computer chess I was told that the greater an engine plays at ply one the better it would play at deeper plys.
Some of todays chess programs simply fail when limited to only one ply of search and evaluation. I have always wondered just how much better they would do if the author increased their playing strength on one ply.
Bill

[Karmazen & Oliver]

When I first got involved with computer chess I was told that the greater an engine plays at ply one the better it would play at deeper plys.
Some of todays chess programs simply fail when limited to only one ply of search and evaluation. I have always wondered just how much better they would do if the author increased their playing strength on one ply.
Bill

thanks for yours words...

oliver.

[BubbaTough]

I have always wondered just how much better they would do if the author increased their playing strength on one ply.
Bill

I guess its just that '1 ply' is poorly defined. For example, you probably assume that 1 ply means that all moves are examined at least one ply. For my program that is not true (I prune some). You probably assume it means the program can detect repetition (assuming it can in normal searches)...not true for me. I am pretty sure my program could play legal moves for a whole game ... but not well. The first version of my program had a different philosophy though, with lots of extensions and stuff (my first tournament it averaged around 8 ply in 50 /3 type game) and if I dug up a copy I would not be surprised if it was one of the top programs at '1 ply' chess around (even though it is markedly weaker at normal chess). Chess programming is about improving the value of the time expended in contributing to coming to a conclusion regarding what move to make, and there are many ways to do that including ones that make the '1 ply' search much stronger as well as ones that make the '1 ply' search much weaker.

That doesn't mean Oliver's tests are not interesting (I think they might be quite interesting actually) just that some programmers may be a little touchy about what conclusions can be drawn from them.

[Bill Rogers]

It took me many years before I cou ld figure out how to implement alpha/beta and search more than one ply.
My first program would only search one ply and it would only generate legal moves. I did this by generating a move and then seeing if the kind was in check, if it way I rejected the move and only evaluated the legal ones. The only thing that helped the horizon a tiny bit was a tiny quiesent search.
Over the years I tested it against several program that I could limit the search depth. I was able to beat Tom's TSCP at one ply even though it had a nice opening book routine.
Bill

[bob]

When I first got involved with computer chess I was told that the greater an engine plays at ply one the better it would play at deeper plys.
Some of todays chess programs simply fail when limited to only one ply of search and evaluation. I have always wondered just how much better they would do if the author increased their playing strength on one ply.
Bill

There are pros and cons. For example, a 1-ply search will fail to see a fork (say Nxc7+ forking king and rook). You can add this to your evaluation and you will play better at 1 ply. But at a more normal 16-20 plies, you will probably play worse, because that eval term takes time, and the search will find the fork before you get to the evaluation anyway.

So it depends on what you do. Adjusting pawn weights, king safety, etc, might pay off. But there are lots of things you can add that might hurt. I ran into this in the 1986 WCCC. I can explain if you are interested...

[Uri Blass]

When I first got involved with computer chess I was told that the greater an engine plays at ply one the better it would play at deeper plys.
Some of todays chess programs simply fail when limited to only one ply of search and evaluation. I have always wondered just how much better they would do if the author increased their playing strength on one ply.
Bill

There are pros and cons. For example, a 1-ply search will fail to see a fork (say Nxc7+ forking king and rook). You can add this to your evaluation and you will play better at 1 ply. But at a more normal 16-20 plies, you will probably play worse, because that eval term takes time, and the search will find the fork before you get to the evaluation anyway.

So it depends on what you do. Adjusting pawn weights, king safety, etc, might pay off. But there are lots of things you can add that might hurt. I ran into this in the 1986 WCCC. I can explain if you are interested...

I am not sure if you are going to play worse at long time control when you evaluate forks by static evaluation.

Is there an evidence for it?
Of course search can detect forks in the first plies but search can never detect forks at the leaves of the tree and by detecting forks at the leaves
of the tree you may have more accurate evaluation.

Note that I do not detect forks by static evaluation but the only test to say if it is worse is something like:
"I tried and tested and it did not work" and even this only proves it for your specific engine and specific implementation.

Uri

[BubbaTough]

I am not sure if you are going to play worse at long time control when you evaluate forks by static evaluation.

Is there an evidence for it?

Well, there is some evidence in that me, and many others I am sure, have tried it and found it worse. No proof of course, but not easy to prove or disprove such things.

-Sam