Author: walter irvin
Date: 02:18:18 12/03/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 02, 2000 at 16:00:50, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 02, 2000 at 15:45:55, Georg Langrath wrote: > >>On December 02, 2000 at 14:58:45, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On December 02, 2000 at 13:33:07, walter irvin wrote: >>> >>>>On December 02, 2000 at 12:06:17, Georg Langrath wrote: >>>> >>>>>It is interesting how strong chesscomputers will be in future only depending on >>>>>hardware. Couldn’t you get an idea if you let two computers play against each >>>>>others with auto 232? One of the computer had usual time controls and the other >>>>>ten times longer time. Then you see what ELO the computer got that had the long >>>>>time controls. In that way you could foresee how strong computers could get, >>>>>when they are ten times faster than today. >>>>> >>>>>Georg >>>>the test you want to run would be better if ponder were left off .because if the >>>>program that gets less time predicts the move then the fact that it gets less >>>>time will be cancelled out .so your test would be good if ponder was off on both >>>>programs . >>> >>>I think that you can do the test with ponder on and you do not need that one >>>program will get more time. >>> >>>The only thing that you need is different computers when one of them is 10 times >>>faster. >>> >>>You can do a match between programs on p100 and programs on p1000 when the time >>>control is 20 hours/40 moves and get the results. >>> >>>Uri >> >>Yes a good idea but there is one question. Is the difference in ELO the same >>between p100 and p1000 as between p1000 and p10000? With my idea you can examine >>that. I think that the difference is bigger between p100 and p1000 than between >>p1000 and p10000. But I am not sure. I would examine myself, but I don't have >>two computers. >> >>Georg > >I assumed that the faster computer is only 10 times faster and that it is the >only difference in both cases. > >If this assumption is correct then I see no problem. > >I suggested time control of 20 hours/40 moves in order to predict the result in >2 hours/40 moves between p10000 and p1000. > >Uri at first sight your idea seems perfect .then i thought about chess itself .i believe that the search tree for a 1ghz computer gets so big that a 10 ghz computer will not make much head way .so to be 1000% sure of this all a person would have to do is use 1 computer with ponder off both programs .give 1 program 3 min the other 30 mins per move .i think a good test would be cm6000 i can play it vs itself at those kinds of odds .i still believe that a 10 ghz computer does not play much better at slow chess than a 1 ghz computer,maybe 100 elo .between a 100 mhz and a 1ghz is about 500 elo .but this test must be done on a 1ghz computer .unless you can figure out how much time a given computer must think to equal a 3 min search and a 30 min search of a 1 ghz computer .
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.