Author: James Swafford
Date: 11:23:35 08/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 09, 2002 at 12:06:35, Jim Monaghan wrote: >Hi, > >Comparision of Ply Depth verses Rating Performance > >I understand this has been done before and probably much better. Anyway, I ran >the IQ test as Bill suggested. Working with average ply depth instead of time, >makes the table more universally applicable to different programs and hardware. >Again there is nothing absolute about the rating numbers -- it's the differences >that are important. By pumping it through Yace 0.99.56 at ascending ply depths I >came up with the following table: > >Cel 1.3 Ghz/256 (32 MB HT) > >Ave Depth Found Percent IQ elo Rating Gain >(Plys) (Total=360) (Max=2764) (Difference) > >5 159 44.17 2094 -- >6 206 57.22 2251 157 >7 241 66.94 2367 116 >8 271 75.28 2467 100 >9 288 80.00 2524 57 >10 308 85.56 2591 67 >11 315 87.50 2614 23 > > >The tree really explodes at 12 ply on a lot of these positions and would take a >huge amount of time. I would expect very little gain in performance anyway. >Knowing (or assuming) that the relationship between ply depth and rating >performance is a lograthmic function, I wonder if a mathematician here can >extrapolate this table working with columns 1 and 5. Hopefully there is enough >of a trend. The rating gain going from ply 8 to ply 9 is either a little low at >57, or the gain from ply 9 to ply 10 is a little high at 67, or both. The chart >could perhaps step a little better, but I'm reporting it as directly as it came >out. Maybe the table can be smoothed out for projection purposes. What would the >expected gain be going from ply 11 to 12, ply 12 to ply 13, etc? Is there a >ceiling? In a theoretical sense, I guess there isn't a ceiling -- but >practically when you consider time spent to achieve higher plys, there might as >well be. Interesting ... That's very interesting, and pretty much in line with what I would expect. About your comment concerning "no ceiling": I think you should expect a rating ceiling. At some depth you could tactically solve the game (i.e. as a tablebase), and more depth would give no more benefit. So, at some depth, rating is "maximized". Just nitpicking. :) Good work, thanks! -- James > >Cheers, >Jim
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.