Author: Clive Munro
Date: 06:14:26 11/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 11, 2004 at 11:57:01, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 11, 2004 at 11:34:35, Derek Paquette wrote: > >>On November 11, 2004 at 08:17:36, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On November 11, 2004 at 08:11:03, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On November 11, 2004 at 07:44:01, Andrew Platt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 11, 2004 at 02:15:20, Derek Paquette wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>I play email chess all the time, aswell as blitz games on the net. I also play >>>>>>engine matches online and this came across. >>>>>> >>>>>>If someone were to play an email game, say a Grandmaster vs Me, and I was to use >>>>>>a computer, and the return move time was say 5 days a piece. If I were to keep >>>>>>Shredder 8 on Infinite analysis for those 5 days per move (say i keep the cpu >>>>>>very cool and i give it a few hours of break) >>>>>> >>>>>>would shredder 8 play a perfect game? or near perfect where the gm would have no >>>>>>chance without the assistance of another computer? >>>>>> >>>>>>I know that the longer the time control the better for the computer but to what >>>>>>end? >>>>>> >>>>>>with 5 days per move, that is 120 hours,(7200min) >>>>>>using the starting position as a bench mark for depth vs time, (where shredder 8 >>>>>>goes 1 more ply after it doubles its time searching) >>>>>> >>>>>>I calculate on my athlon 1700xp that after 5 days shredder 8 would reach >>>>>>.... >>>>>> >>>>>>depth 21 in 27 minutes...knowing that... >>>>>> >>>>>>depth 22 in 54 min >>>>>>depth 23 in 108 min >>>>>>depth 24 in 216 min >>>>>>depth 25 in 432 min >>>>>>depth 26 in 864 min >>>>>>depth 27 in 1728 min >>>>>>depth 28 in 3456 min >>>>>>depth 29 in 6912 min >>>>>> >>>>>>So basically shredder 8 would reach a ply of 29 in just under 5 days... >>>>>>could ANY human EVER beat it EVER? without computer assistance? >>>>> >>>>>Yes of course a human could beat it EVER. If it's a quiet position, the human >>>>>could use those 15 moves to significantly improve their position while Shredder >>>>>flounders around a bit. >>>> >>>>Shredder can also use the 15 moves to improve it's position. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>What would work much better, and what I do for post-game analysis of my games, >>>>>is to let Shredder think for a while and then move, let it think, move and see >>>>>what happens to the position. Or let it play against itself. I often do that, >>>>>then find improvements for Shredder, get it to try that out. >>>> >>>>Shredder could find a lot of these improvement if you give it more time and it >>>>can also find improvement that you did not find in that way. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>I can add that 29 plies of shredder does not mean that it can see everything in >>>the next 14 or 15 moves of both sides. >>> >>>It is obvious that shredder does a lot of pruning to get that depth. >>> >>>Uri >> >>Yes it definately does pruning, but what is your thoughts on a human beating it >>at those time controls? 5 days per move. (no computer assistance for the >>human) > >I guess that inspite of the pruning No human will beat it with no computer >assistence at 5 days per move. > >I do not claim that no human can do it but the humans who can do it have no >reason to spend time on it because they are smart enough to use their time >better(for example toearn money in over the board game). > >Top correspondence players have hard problems against computers even when they >use computer help and using computer help is usually allowed in correspondence >games. > > >Uri I agree with Uri, I think that any chess computer/program will only play to a certain level. Even given that amount of time if the program has pruned a good positional move early on, it can only see the consequences if it were on a brute force search. And then only if the program were clever enough to recognise it. I bet Shredder would not play much better over 5 days a move than 1 hour a move.
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.