Author: Mark Young
Date: 15:24:21 05/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 23, 2000 at 09:05:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Lets be generous and say a ply is worth 100 rating points, and we can take Fritz 6a for an example. Now you said it does not matter if it’s the 1st going to 2 or 14 ply going to 15 ply. Its pretty much the same, if I understand you correctly. Lets assume Fritz 6a plays at a 2500 rating +/- 100 rating points, with a average middle games search depth of 15 plies. 15ply X 100 rating points = 1500 rating. Where are the extra 1000 rating points coming from? Is Fritz really rated 1500, or are some plies worth much more the others. It is clear that the early plies are worth much more the later plies, and if you plot it out it’s a curve. I don't know of one program that does not exhibit a curve.
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.