Author: Uri Blass
Date: 16:32:08 01/12/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2005 at 18:45:47, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 12, 2005 at 17:49:17, chandler yergin wrote: > >>On January 12, 2005 at 17:39:55, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On January 12, 2005 at 13:31:16, chandler yergin wrote: >>> >>>>On January 12, 2005 at 10:54:26, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 12, 2005 at 02:33:38, Jouni Uski wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In my (private) endgame testsuite Fruit scored better than some programs >>>>>>with tablebase support (e.g. Junior8 and Crafty). >>>> >>>> >>>>>Quite stunning - it seems, >>>>>>that excellent search depth compensates TBs! >>>> >>>> Your opinion.. Provide evidence! >>>> >>>> And my suite has some 5/6 piece >>>>>>positions were TB access is definitely advantage. >>>>>> >>>>>>Jouni >>>>> >>>>>IMO the 5-piece tablebases are just not that interesting and really not worth >>>>>that much in terms of elo. >>>> >>>>What are the Current ELO Ratings for Top Programs, including yours? >>>> >>>>THey represents exact play, and all positions possible are immediatly shown. >>>>What more can you expect? >>>> >>>> >>>>> A little endgame knowledge can cover most of the >>>>>positions and be a lot faster too. >>>> >>>>Absolute NONSENSE! >>> >>>Not nonsense. >>> >>>In most of the position of 5 pieces or less than it computers can find the right >>>move with no tablebases. >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>Nonsense Uri! >>They "May" find it... Ha Ha.. in how long! >>Stop the Crap! > >Suppose that a tablebase takes 2 days to create today. >Next year it will take one day to create it. >The following year, it will take 12 hours. >Year 3: 6 hours >Year 4: 3 hours >Year 5: 90 minutes >Year 6: 45 minutes >Year 7: 22.5 minutes >Year 8: 11.25 minutes >Year 9: 5.625 minutes >Year 10: 2.8125 minutes >Year 11: 1.40625 minutes >Year 12: 42.1875 seconds >Year 13: 21.09375 seconds >Year 14: 10.546875 seconds >Year 15: 5.2734375 seconds >Year 16: 2.63671875 seconds >Year 17: 1.318359375 seconds >Year 18: 0.6591796875 of a second >Year 19: 0.32958984375 of a second >Year 20: 0.164794921875 of a second. > >What that means is that perfect information will be generated in a fraction of a >second, if that is what is desired. > >This is a conservative estimate, since compute power seems to be growing >superexponentially, rather than just exponentially. any proof for the last point? I see no way to know. I think that there is some maximal ability that you cannot do better than it so common sense tells me that the progress must be stopped somewhere. After all you cannot move faster than the light. I do not know when the advance in the speed of computers will be stopped but it must be stopped sometime so I cannot believe that twice faster every year for the next 20 years is conservative estimate. 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.