Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 11:54:34 03/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 26, 2001 at 22:11:48, Dann Corbit wrote: >On March 26, 2001 at 22:00:41, Christophe Theron wrote: >[snip] >>Of course you could demonstrate your point about the 150 to 200 elo jump by >>writting a program that really sucks until it can run at 800MHz or higher, but >>my point is that a well designed program will not get a 150 to 200 elo increase >>just because it is running on a dual, even at 3 0. >> >>The elo increase, at any time control, will be in the range around 25 ELO. >> >>Hey, if you go at 6 plies on a 450 and reach 8 to 9 plies on a 800, you have a >>bloody serious problem somewhere in your program, believe me. :) > >Such changes are not at all unusual. > >If I have written a sorting algorithm that is O(n*log(log(n))) [and such things >do exist] will it be faster for sorting three things than Shellsort? Surely >not. But with enough data for input, it will always beat Shellsort. > >The curve may do all sorts of ugly, wiggly nonsenese near the origin, and have a >high initial y intercept. But given enough time, it must beat the other >algorithm because of the O(f(n)) behavior. > >If I have an algorithm with good O(f(n)) behavior, you may have an algorithm >with much worse O(f(n)) behavior and consistently beat me bloody with your >algorithm because of behavior near the origin. But if we both get faster and >faster machines, at some point the tables will turn. > >Since Vincent's algorithm does not perform well at low CPU strength, that is >certainly one possibility (among the myriad of possibilities). Let's not talk about oranges here but about plydepth. 6 ply is a pathetic search depth no matter what your evaluation does. 8-9 ply is of course *always* beating 6 ply search depths. And not an increas of 2.5 points margins in 100 games. It's more like 250 points increase, or in ICC rating more like 500 rating points increase. >We should not be quick to assume that behavior on a slow speed CPU must have a >linear match to behavior on a very high speed CPU. > >I have definitely seen programs for which blitz behavior does not parallel >behavior when playing real chess. > >Amy springs to mind. Amy is not a good blitzer. Put Amy on a 1GHz+ computer >and Amy shows her teeth.
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.