Author: K. Burcham
Date: 14:53:47 07/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
ED, I have also thought very much about this same thing. The reason for my interest is because of what it means when 2 opponents play each other in a long standard game, when one of the opponents has small hardware. This small hardware, if the game is long enough, will still reach respectable depths. But the question in this situation for me would be how much is being stored in hash to make the next move if you have large mhz and large hash. in other words, to see what i am talking about here, i have always wanted to run two computers with same program on strong hardware. when playing this game with two computers, lets say both have 2000 mhz amd with 1 gig ram and hash set at 432 megs. but on computer A, select "clear hash after every move". on computer B select "store moves". in this example it would be interesting to see how many times in an actual game against a GM or another program using these two computers, that computer A would not choose the same move as computer B, if most all moves in a game were to take 3 to 5 minutes per move, such as a 120/10 game. I have noticed when i play on one of the game servers using 2x1533mhz, with smp program, if i play against another program with 120/10 time control, most moves are still made in 2 to 5 minutes after book moves are played. yes some moves might take 5 to 8 minutes, but not many. when playing against another program, it seems the opponent's move is expected most of the time. when playing against a human GM, lots of moves are not expected by the program, and the eval depth drops after making the unexpected GM move. if the GM plays a line that the program has not been looking at in its past moves the depth stays very low with all programs, if the program has looked at most of the moves involved with the GM move then the program depth will stay high in eval. so it seems the hardware of today cannot play at the depths in your chart where you show 0 change in moves selected. i do not doubt your accuracy at all, but i think in most games against other programs with strong hardware we will not see the same results as your chart, because your program will not have looked at the expected move by the opponent in a real game, especially against a human. and at depths of between 11 and 16, your chart shows lots of changes your program might make at these depths. also as each one of these changes are made, it would seem that the possibility of more changes would increase substantially with each following change made by the program in an actual game. in other words, one change will lead to another change, to another change. where as if it is just a test position, then i can see where your chart could show your statistics. it has been proven, many many times this year, that any of the top programs on the strongest hardware, 2500 mhz intel, or 1800 mhz amd, both with very large hash, in a very long time control game----either program can lose or win at any time, and i dont mean the games where one program wins because of book. so it will be interesting to see how the draws increase in games over the next five years as hardware and mhz improves. and i fully expect the human to program win loss ratio to change with these hardware improvements. the chart is very interesting, it reminds me of some negative comments that Chris has made about upgrading mhz. kburcham
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.