Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:02:36 05/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 22, 2000 at 22:24:20, Mark Young wrote: >On May 22, 2000 at 18:35:44, Joshua Lee wrote: > >>This is the problem i get juggling those numbers.... >>Deeper Blue 1997 (15at a minimum)17-18 Ply 2817 (USCF) >> 200 MNPS 2.048Thz >> >>2817USCF -50 or -100 2767 or 2717FIDE (not to get sidetracked but keep this >>in mind -107 2660 or 2610) >> >>You said DB2 is +1 ply because it is 2x Faster let's keep in mind the minimum >>Ply as well >> Deep Blue 1996 (14Ply Min 16-17 Ply (*)14 Ply >>2642(FIDE?) >> 100 MNps 1.024Thz >> >>512Ghz would be 50MNps and (13Ply Minimum)15 Ply so 2642-50= 2592 or -60 >>=2582 >>or is it -90 =2552??? >> >>i could really confuse things by considering Deep Blue's Positional Strength >>as plain and simple a Programs strength is just it's positional play (which >>isn't a fact ) people play program X but only positionally. They keep the >>position devoid of tactics... >>so let's say 2535- 50 =2485 or -60 = 2475 or is it 2445? >> >>Something tells me that this is going to end up Showing that PC's are around >>2000 which isn't the case!! >> >>what i was saying above is that i don't know that we should say programs are >>-107 or so because lack of positional strength. I got this number by not >>counting the first game of the DB1 match Kasparov's rating at the time was 2775 >>which is in itself way inflated from the 70's but that is another topic. >>I remember someone saying how if you disregarded the first game the results show >>that even at this depth the positional strength of DB was at 2535 (-107) >> >>You said : doubling the cpu speed is generally said to produce 50-60 rating >>points.Since the typical effective branching factor is around 3.0, every time >>the >>speed is tripled, we get another ply, and using the 60 point figure above, >>a ply would be about 90 rating points, roughly. But there is nothing that >>says that as we go deeper this doesn't taper off. Nor is there anything that >>says that as we go deeper, the gain doesn't actually get larger... > >You are wrong, there is a lot of "say" that shows as you increase ply depth the >next ply you increase gets fewer and fewer rating points. > Where? IE I have seen this _said_ several times. But I have never seen it _shown_. Two good examples to the contrary are the "crafty goes deep" and "dark thought goes deep" published in the JICCA. Both suggest that at least until we reach depth 15/16, each additional ply is revealing new and more important information about a position... and resulting in steadily improving play... I think the programs are getting stronger every year, even if nothing is changed but faster hardware... and it is reasonably linear... so far.
This page took 0.01 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.