Author: Mark Young
Date: 00:59:34 05/15/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 14, 1999 at 16:58:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 14, 1999 at 11:07:36, José Carlos wrote: > >>On May 14, 1999 at 05:24:20, Peter Hegger wrote: >> >>>Hello >>>Let's say that today's best programs, Fritz, CM6000, junior etc.. are playing at >>>the 2450 level at 40/2 when they've got hardware capable of knocking off .5M >>>nps. I don't think this is too outlandish an assumption. >>>If you double this speed 8 times over you arrive at 128M nps. This is in the >>>same ballpark as this new proposed screamer of Hsu's which it is estimated will >>>knock off 120M nps on a multi-processor platform. >>>I've seen in other threads that doubling speed will increase performance >>>anywhere from 30-70 points per doubling. For argument's sake and to split the >>>difference I'll assume that 50 is likely pretty close. Using 2450 as the base >>>this would translate into an elo of 2850 give or take a bit. >>>Is it really possible that a machine which is stronger (marginally) rating wise >>>than the world champion is right around the corner. Or am I missing something >>>here in making this estimate? >>>In any event I'd love to see Kasparov tackle this baby in a 40/2 24 game match. >>>Bets anyone? :) >>>Regards >>>Peter >> >> >> The increment of peroformance doubling speed is more little as speed >>increases. Doubling speed allows, usually, to go one ply deeper. So it's very >>different to go from ply 7 to ply 8 than to go from ply 50 to ply 51, isn't it? >> >> José C. > > >You need to read the ICCA Journal. There is lots of evidence (now) that >going deeper does indeed lead to better play.7 to 8 is clearly going to do >more than going from 50 to 51. But 7 to 8 might not be any better than >going from 14 to 15 or even 19 to 20, based on experiments both I and Ernst >did. Programs _still_ find better moves at deeper depths, even when the >depth is increased from 14 to 15 or 15 to 16. Why must there be experimental evidence to show that programs that are "non-null movers" and have a progressive full width search component get better as their search gets deeper? We know that chess is finite and 100% tactical and thus in general the question of ply depth can be answered through mathmatics and no experimental evidence is needed. However, for individual programs, experimental data may indeed hold value. In simple terms, the deeper a program searches the less chance for a horizon effect to bite you thus breaking the balance of the game turning a draw or a won position into a losing one. Now, actully calculating an accurate average for how much an additional ply added to any given search depth will boost your rating would be a tremendous undertaking experimentally, since there are so many variables to be taken into account. But, experimentally is the only way to proceede since we've currently been unable to solve the little problem of chess mathmatically as of yet.
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.