Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: CCL results 08-06-98

Author: Christophe Theron

Date: 19:52:35 06/09/98

Go up one level in this thread


On June 09, 1998 at 21:10:24, Mark Young wrote:

>On June 09, 1998 at 17:02:51, Ed Schröder wrote:
>
>>>Posted by Christophe Theron on June 09, 1998 at 14:01:59:
>>
>>>>My view, in total 30 >>4:30 vs 45:00<< games will be played. Imagine
>>>>the following possible scores:
>>
>>>>a) 4:30 vs 45:00   5 - 25    --> Speed is decisive.
>>>>b) 4:30 vs 45:00  10 - 20    --> My expectation.
>>>>c) 4:30 vs 45:00  13 - 17    --> Speed is not decisive.
>>
>>
>>>I you use the top programs currently competing in CCL, my bet is that
>>>you'll get the 5 - 25 result.
>>
>>It's an old discussion. My view is that going from 5 to 6 ply is a lot
>>more worth than going from ply 12 to 13 and going from 12 to 13 ply will
>>gain more elo than going from ply 18 to 19.
>>
>
>From the testing I have done in the past. I think that this view is most
>probable correct.
>
>>IMO there comes a time (say about 10 years?) that a doubling of
>>processor speed will gain only 2-5 elo points. How much worth is
>>a doubling these days? A NPS tournament can reveal something about
>>this.
>>
>
>This might be true running todays programs, but you programmers are very
>good at finding new ways of using spare CPU horsepower.
>
>
>
>>My speculation is 10-20 as the current top programs at such fast
>>machines are already so good that they can't be slaughtered with
>>your suggested 5-25.
>>
>>- Ed -
>>
>>
>>>This just will tell us nothing. I suppose you think differently. So can
>>>you please explain what kind of lesson you are expecting from this?
>>
>
>It’s amazing just how little the creator truly understands the nature of
>the monster he makes.

Maybe I don't know my creature very well, but you can be sure I know it
better than anyone else on earth.

Gives you an idea of the kind of understanding most people (including on
CCC) have about chess programs. :)



>If we knew what lessons we would learn for running this experiment there
>might not be a need to run it.


You are right, that's why I added the following comments (see quote
below):


>>>But OK, as I said, this has to be done at least one time.
>>
>>>And BTW I hope to be wrong. I like to be surprised!
>>
>>>    Christophe



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.