Author: Jouni Uski
Date: 23:09:48 09/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 14, 2000 at 13:42:49, Ed Schröder wrote: >In the upcoming Rebel Century 3.0 I have implemented a little >statistic routine that reveals something about the nature of SEARCH >that could be important for the future of computer chess in the sense >that it says "something" one may expect in the near future because >of faster and faster PC's. > >Research on this issue have already been done by Bob and Ernst and >it has made me curious so I have spend a little time on it. The >statistic shows 2 things: > >a) number of fail-low's for each depth; >b) number of "changed moves" for each depth. > >(a) is not so important as often fail-low's do not mean anything but I >wanted to know anyway. > >(b) is extremely important as it shows for each depth how many times >Rebel changed its mind. As you can see in the below statistic the % >diminish and diminish the deeper Rebel goes. > >How to read the overview: >- first column: iteration depth; >- second column: number of times the depth was reached; >- third column: number of fail-low's; >- fourth column: percentage of fail-low's; >- Fifth column: number of changed moves; >- Last column: percentage of changed moves; > >SEARCH OVERVIEW >=============== > >1 4726 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >2 4726 1000 (21) 1889 (39) >3 4726 495 (10) 1468 (31) >4 4719 209 ( 4) 1085 (22) >5 4719 218 ( 4) 1222 (25) >6 4699 191 ( 4) 1139 (24) >7 4655 141 ( 3) 948 (20) >8 4572 109 ( 2) 837 (18) >9 4457 79 ( 1) 777 (17) >10 3998 86 ( 2) 644 (16) >11 3015 64 ( 2) 374 (12) >12 1904 55 ( 2) 204 (10) >13 1093 37 ( 3) 77 ( 7) >14 584 22 ( 3) 35 ( 5) >15 356 15 ( 4) 22 ( 6) >16 230 7 ( 3) 6 ( 2) >17 157 6 ( 3) 2 ( 1) >18 123 6 ( 4) 3 ( 2) >19 88 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >20 67 0 ( 0) 1 ( 1) >21 55 0 ( 0) 1 ( 1) >22 54 0 ( 0) 1 ( 1) >23 50 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >24 47 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >25 40 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >26 30 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >27 28 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >28 22 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >29 19 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >30 14 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >31 14 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >32 13 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >33 12 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >34 12 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >35 10 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >36 10 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >37 10 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >38 10 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >39 10 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >40 8 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >41 8 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >42 5 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >43 4 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >44 3 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >45 3 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >46 2 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >47 2 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >48 2 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >49 2 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >50 2 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >51 2 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >52 2 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >53 2 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >54 2 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >55 2 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >56 2 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >57 2 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >58 2 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >59 2 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >60 2 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) > >After iteration 19 one hardly sees any changes. One might wonder >if a doubling in speed is still good for 50-70 elo (as often said >here). > Interesting figures. But note, that recent autoplay tests have shown, that there are diminishing benefit from extra seach ply. In CSS 4/00 there was investigation with Fritz and Hiarcs and BOTH behave same way: extra ply gave always less ELO gain. So this 50-70 benefit is proven wrong, when playing against same program! Jouni
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.