Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:02:18 01/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 07, 2002 at 13:40:45, James T. Walker wrote: >On January 07, 2002 at 10:22:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 07, 2002 at 10:02:37, James T. Walker wrote: >> >>>It's more or less accepted that a doubling of speed gives only about 50-70 elo >>>points increase. Therefore your chart makes not sense. If we use a compromise >>>of say 60 elo increase the 2000Mhz machine would score approximately 58.5%. >>>Also there is no reason for this percentage to vary with time controls using the >>>same engine. >>>Jim >> >> >>Actually there is a _big_ reason why the data came out as it did. Look at >>anybody's results where they used the _same_ program, but played one copy at >>depth=N and another at depth N-1. At shallow depths, N wipes N-1 out. As the >>depth goes deeper, N does't do nearly as well. IE 4ply to 3ply, for the >>_same_ program, is a 33% deeper search for 4 ply. For 10 ply vs 11 ply, >>the difference is 10% deeper... > > >Hello Bob, >What is the point of your post? I don't see what it has to do with the thread. >Can you explain further? I like learning about stuff like this but you have >confused me. >Jim Adding one ply of search in a match X vs X will improve the results for that side. But if both programs can search to depth=3 and you add 1 ply to one of them, that is a _huge_ advantage. But if both can search to depth=14, then adding 1 ply to one is _not_ such a huge advantage. I simply pointed out that the results that were posted (2x faster hardware produced much more lopsided results as the games got faster and faster) were quite normal and expected... Giving one program 2x faster hardware is close to giving it one extra ply of search...
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.