Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 21:15:28 11/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 07, 2000 at 15:35:27, Uri Blass wrote:
>On November 07, 2000 at 14:35:09, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On November 07, 2000 at 01:48:44, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>On November 07, 2000 at 00:44:43, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>
>>><snipped>
>>>>Programs of 1990 include the Mephisto line on 680xx. In 1990, it was the
>>>>Mephisto Lyon. I guess it was running on a 68030.
>>>
>>>I find Mephisto lyon on 68030 36 mhz in the ssdf list(rating of 2151 that is 479
>>>elo weaker than Fritz6a)
>>>
>>>I believe that it was an hardware dedicated for chess and it means that it
>>>cannot run on 1Gh computers.
>>
>>
>>No, it was simply a 68030 processor+RAM+ROM+I/O. A classical computer actually.
>>
>>
>>
>>><snipped>
>>>>It's just an exception. Generally, 12 plies of extensions is more than enough.
>>>
>>>It was more than enough for slow hardware but I believe that it is often not
>>>more than enough with the hardware of today in tournament time control.
>>>
>>>Remember that the 12 plies of Genius included also the Qsearch.
>>
>>
>>What you need to know is that Genius uses a SEE. That means that it simulates a
>>QSearch (capture search) after each leaves.
>>
>>So at the end of the ply 12 of the QSearch, it takes into account the captures
>>sequences that start at the 13th ply and on.
>>
>>So in practice his QSearch is not limited to 12 plies.
>>
>>
>>
>>><snipped>
>>>>If doubling speed accounts for only 30 elo (to take into account an hypothetical
>>>>"dimishing returns"), that still makes 299 elo points.
>>>>
>>>>I don't believe there is 300 elo points of difference between current best
>>>>programs and the best program of 1990 if they are run on equal hardware.
>>>
>>>The difference between 500Gh and 1 Gh is almost 9 doubling and it means 270 elo
>>>points difference(assuming 30 elo for doubling).
>>
>>
>>The formula is elodiff=30*log(speedratio)/log(2)
>>
>>In our case 30*log(1000)/log(2)=298.9735285398626... which I rounded to 299.
>
>In our case the speed ratio is 500 because my cliam was athat the top program of
>1990(500Ghz) is going to lose against the top program of 2000(1gh) and not
>500Mhz
All this was about the best program of 1990 at 500GHz against the best program
of today at 500MHz.
>>>Here is some information about the difference in rating based on the ssdf list.
>>>
>>>Fritz6 is 78 elo better than Fritz5.32 on the same hardware(450Mhz).
>>>Fritz5.32 is 56 elo better than Rebel9 on the same hardware(200Mhz)
>>>Rebel9 is 31 elo better than Genius4 on the same hardware(p90)
>>>Genius4 is 109 elo better than Fritz3 on the smae hardware(486 50-66 mhz)
>>>
>>>Fritz3 came some years after 1990 and the difference is 78+56+31+109=274.
>>
>>
>>But Fritz3 was not the best at this time.
>>
>>To be fair, we should evaluate the software improvement between the Mephisto
>>Lyon and the more recent Genius programs.
>>
>>I think it is possible to do so, because Lang has ported back Genius to the
>>68030. I think this Mephisto computer is called Mephisto Genius 68030.
>>
>>Here are the relevant lines in the August 2000 SSDF list:
>>
>> 71 Meph Genius 68 030 33 MHz 2198 45 -44 248 55% 2161
>> 84 Mephisto Lyon 68030 36 MHz 2151 28 -27 716 68% 2016
>>
>>The difference in elo is 47. If you take into account the MHz difference, which
>>account for approx. 9 elo points (70*log(36/33)/log(2)), then the elo difference
>>is 56 points. I know the error margin is big, but we have only this.
>
>I understand that you say that Fritz3 is weaker than the best program of 1990.
>It seems that the progress in computer chess was clearly slower in these years.
No, it means that Richard was simply above the competition. Only Ed was very
close to him (Gideon pro was about equal to Genius 1). The other ones took
several years to come back. Actually they managed to come back only when Richard
gave up serious chess programming (I believe it was somewhere between 1994 and
1996). At least that's how I see it, but I don't have enough informations to be
sure.
I think Fritz3 was weaker than the Mephisto Lyon. But to check this you have to
do some math, because they did not run on the same computers.
Fortunately, the Mephisto Lyon (or one of its close successor) was ported on the
PC under the name Genius 1 (actually it was the Mephisto Vancouver, but the
difference between the two is small).
This leaves some room to quibble about the efficiency of the port, but it can be
cross-checked with the port of Genius 3 back to 68030 (actually I believe that
Richard was constantly updating both his x86 and 68K code all the time).
Here are the relevant lines of the SSDF list:
77 Chess Genius 1.0 486/50-66 MHz 2182 23 -23 931 54% 2154
83 Fritz 3.0 486/50-66 MHz 2157 20 -20 1226 45% 2190
>I believe that no top program of today is going to be weaker than the best
>program of 1996.
You mean on equal hardware? Yes, I agree.
>>The Mephisto Genius 68030 has been released in 1994 and is supposed to be a port
>>of Genius 3 for PC to the 68030 architecture.
>>
>>
>>Now I leave to you the task to evaluate how Genius 3 would perform on current
>>SSDF top hardware (K6-2 450).
>>
>>I would be surprised to see a 300 elo difference between Genius 3 and current
>>best programs.
>
>I agree that the difference between Genius3 and Fritz6a is clearly smaller than
>300 elo.
>
>>
>>And if it is the case, remember that 300 elo has been evaluated assuming a big
>>dimishing returns effect of 30 elo per speed doubling. The actual value on
>>current computers is 70 elo per speed doubling.
>
>I believe that the difference is smaller for older programs and my guess is that
>programs like genius3 are going to earn less elo from doubling speed from
>500 mgh to 1gh relative to the new programs so 70 elo per speed doubling is not
>the actual value even without diminishing returns.
But 30 elo per doubling speed is probably a lower bound, that's why I did the
two evaluations (with 30 and with 70).
Christophe
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.