Author: Mark Young
Date: 20:30:30 06/09/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 09, 1998 at 22:52:35, Christophe Theron wrote: >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. > I did not mean that comment to be a slam against you or anyone. I just think it's interesting how much we still don't know. If we all knew the out come of this testing, then it would be pointless. >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.