Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:05:15 05/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 23, 2000 at 01:19:27, Mark Young wrote: >On May 22, 2000 at 23:02:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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. > >It is....Hmmm What is the rating jump going from say 3 plys to 4? What is the >rating jump going from 7 plys to 8? What is the rating jump going from 11 plys >to 12 plys. This we have and can get data on, and you know as I do it is not >near linear. As the ply depth get deeper you gain less by adding one more ply. > I don't know that at all. I know of two experiments that took two well-known programs and tried them on a set of game positions (over 300). And then the difference from ply-to-ply was measured. And at depth=15 the programs were changing to better moves just as often as they did at depth=3. Which is why many don't think there is any 'flattening' of the rating curve at all. I'm not sure that there is no "diminishing returns". But I am sure that there is some evidence to suggest there is none. Both papers were published in the JICCA. >Now it is true as you go deeper the curve does flaten out and it because more >linear, but the trend *so far* is always for less ratings gain for the next ply >searched. > Based on what? The original tests were always done with program A playing program A at 1 more ply. I am not convinced that means anything at all. The more recent tests were program A vs many positions taken from a game played by a human. >At todays point on the curve if a ply is worth 90 rating points, do you really >think for example going for 25 to 26 plys will get you anywhere near a 90 rating >point gain with all things being equal except ply depth. > >I think not. First, I don't think "90" is a "magic number". Bruce found that Ferret searching very shallowly could hold a rating > 2200 on ICC. At the time, his program was rated over 2800 in a real rating there. Which means each ply was worth much less than 90. So "N" points per ply, linearly? I think it is definitely possible. And yes, it is possible that some programs begin to 'flatten out' while others don't. I don't see anything that suggests that can't happen either.
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.