Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: hardware importance in human-comp?!

Author: martin fierz

Date: 07:23:26 11/11/03

Go up one level in this thread


On November 11, 2003 at 08:50:53, Aaron Gordon wrote:

>It would be better had they used a quad or 8-way Opteron running 2GHz or more.
>From some testing I've done in the past you can figure a single Opteron 2GHz ==
>a P4-3.6GHz in Fritz 8 (32bit mode). So, a Quad Opteron 2.0 == Quad P4-3.6.
>Almost 30% faster, plus the memory bandwidth available would probably push it a
>bit over that with large hash table sizes. 8-way Opteron 2.0 would of course be
>like 8 p4-3.6's (however with some 40gb/s+ memory bandwidth available depending
>on bus speed).
>
>Why not use the best hardware? Seems like if you'd want to promote your new
>'awesome' chess program you'd want to give it the best chance of winning.

i believe hardware is vastly overrated in human-comp matches. this whole theory
of improving with increasing speed is based (AFAIK) on comp-comp games, starting
out with thompson's experiments with belle, letting the *same* program play
against itself with increasing search depth. *of course* it shows that searching
deeper helps. however, when you consider the search depth that these monster
machines reach nowadys (is it 16 or 19 ply?), you will see that they easily
outcalculate the human all the time *if there is something to calculate*.

e.g. when hiarcs (or was it another program) allowed smirin to set up a fortress
in an endgame that was lost for smirin, it could have searched 10 ply deeper and
would not have seen that it's a draw. similarly, had kramnik played on in that
famous game he lost to deep fritz in bahrain he would have ended up in a
fortress position with R+P vs Q+P (IIRC), where fritz could have searched for
years and still believed to be winning.

IMO the big thing in human-comp matches for the computer side is making sure
that you get a position where there is something to calculate. if you get that,
you can be running on a 1GHz machine or on a supercomputer, it doesn't matter -
you'll always outgun the human. the other option is to improve the program so
far that these holes disappear, which will happen sooner or later too...

cheers
  martin



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.