Author: Frank Phillips
Date: 01:25:41 05/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2001 at 23:48:48, Christophe Theron wrote: >On May 19, 2001 at 23:37:31, Ratko V Tomic wrote: > >>>I'm extremely surprised that my creature managed to survive more >>> than 30 moves, given a 300 times speed handicap. >> >>The flip side is that the current programs running at some >>future machines at 300 GHz won't be able to crush the current >>programs on 1 GHz any more convincingly (in terms of how >>many moves the slower machine can hang on) than what happened >>in this matchup. >> >>This is the same effect that many players have experienced >>when upgrading their hardware to 2-3 times faster one and >>then being disapponted, after all the expense and hopes, >>when they can't even notice any difference in the perceived >>program strength (aginst humans). > > > >You are absolutely right. > >I think we are already beginning to experience the effects of dimishing returns >in chess on current hardware at long time controls. > > > > Christophe Would someone take the time to explain this simply and clearly, to me. I can understand that if you are already beating humans (or some other group of players) most of the time, then increasing the speed still means you are beating them most of the time and maybe a bit more, but until a machine can see _all_ there is to see how would it not improve by seeing more and how can you say (apriori) that it will improve only at a diminishing return? In other words, I can believe that results against a set of players is aysomtopic, tending towards 100 percent, but do see why this is necessarily true of the game played by two otherwiseequally matched entities.
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.