Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:13:06 07/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 22, 2003 at 05:30:19, Drexel,Michael wrote: >On July 22, 2003 at 02:27:31, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On July 22, 2003 at 02:22:44, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >> >>>On July 22, 2003 at 00:04:58, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On July 21, 2003 at 23:50:38, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 21, 2003 at 23:47:12, Derek Paquette wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Hey, while I agree it would cost A LOT >>>>>>i have to disagree with you on the point that it "isn't" possible. >>>>>>While all wins might seem crazy, >>>>>>If 15 million dollars was invested into it, >>>>>>a machine that dwarfed deep blue, >>>>>>with much larger openning books, (only 4000 lines for deep blue, and people >>>>>>think DJ8 that has hundreds of thousands was just as strong? dont' get that, but >>>>>>neway) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>if its looking at a TRUE 20 ply ahead, I don't see how it could lose with that >>>>>>much invested. >>>>> >>>>>It will lose very rarely, but will still draw quite frequently... >>>> >>>>Let's suppose that though a titanic bucket of money, the speed of Deep Blue were >>>>increased thusly: >>>> >>>>Per-CPU speedup 100x (already achieved 10x, I think -- 100x should be doable) >>>>CPU number increase 10x (480 to 4,800) >>>> >>>>so we have 1000x power increase. That would correspond to about 10 doublings in >>>>power. >>>>That would be 500 ELO. >>> >>>How did you calculate this? >>> >>>Assuming a branching factor of 3, log(1000)/log(3) is about 6 plies. 6 >>>additional plies will increase the strength significantly, but not more than 200 >>>Elo in my opinion (diminishing returns, etc). >> >>50 ELO per doubling of speed is the lower end of the standard estimates (50-70 >>ELO is the heuristic figure). > >This estimate is for comp-comp. Contrary to popular believe the increase is less >than 15 ELO against humans. There is of course the psychological factor. >Chess players with no experience in Computer Chess might be scared playing the >Super Computer and play much weaker (passive) as they would play against a mere >PC. > >> >>As far as diminishing returns go, it has been demonstrated by one study and >>refuted by another. >> >>>Computers are already stronger than humans in tactics, so 6 additional plies >>>will just be an overkill. On the other hand, those 6 additional plies will >>>hardly make up for the program's inferior positional understanding in comparison >>>to humans. >> >>With 6 more plies, tactics become strategy. If a program that can consider 12 >>plies (6 full moves) can now consider 18 plies, that is 9 fullmoves ahead. > >9 fullmoves? This is almost nothing in a closed position. It wont help you a >thing to find better moves in the Kings Indian defence for example. I do not think that you are tight here: 1)finding better moves in a lost position is also important because the opponent with the advantage may fail to win the game. 2)programs may avoid part of the blunders that they do if they search deeper. They do not need to see that the blunder is losing and it is enough if they see that another move is better. If they are too optimistic they may reject the wrong move because the opponent can force a draw. Uri
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.