Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:36:04 11/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 12, 2004 at 12:27:09, Clive Munro wrote: >On November 12, 2004 at 10:49:17, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On November 12, 2004 at 09:14:26, Clive Munro wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>I am sure Shredder will play much better with 5 days a move than 1 hour a move >>unless it has some bug. >>Based on experience computers find better moves with more time and there is no >>limit. >> >>Uri > >The computer is only as good as its program. Take for example an older computer >program say Frita 3. I doubt whether it will play much better than its rating of >about 2400elo given a week per move! The program would ignore better moves not >because it can’t see them but because its program would think that they are not >such good moves. If it searches deep enough it may see that they are good moves. I very much doubt that Fritz 3 would beat Shredder 8 if >Shredder had 1 hour a move and Fritz 3 5 days a move. I also doubt it but the reason is that the gap between Shredder8 and Fritz3 is huge. If you take Shredder8 and something that is 100 elo weaker than I expect the weaker thing to win at 5 days against 1 hour. Note I do not claim that there is no diminishing returns but I believe that the returns from doubling the speed is at least 30 elo even at correspondence time control and 5 days is 120 times 1 hour so I expect difference of 200 elo between shredder8 at 5 days per move and shredder8 at 1 hour per move. The difference between shredder8 and Fritz3 is bigger than 200 elo. 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.