Author: José Carlos
Date: 12:16:45 05/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 14, 1999 at 22:42:52, James T. Walker wrote: >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. > >I'm curious as to the origin of this "Myth". It seems logical that you can take >any "Winning" move and back 51 plies and then do a 50 ply search and miss the >whole thing. Why would the 51st ply be less important than the 8th ply? The >"Winning" move may lie just over the hill no matter how high or low the >hill.(IMHO) Seems to me the only thing that would decrease the value of a >deeper ply is when you get so far ahead of your opponent that one more ply does >not make any difference. I realize this is very simplistic but still seems >logical. It looks like humans just can't fathom the idea of finding the winning >move in the 51st ply while finding it in the 8th ply seems more "realistic". >Jim Walker This is an interesting thing to argue about, but what I was speaking of is the difference, in terms of rating, that there may be from going from ply 8 to 9 than from 50 to 51. Of course it's true that it's possible to find a winning move in ply 51 that you haven't seen in ply 50, but as you go deeper, your evaluation of the position is closer to the real value (in general, of course; that's why deeper searchers play better), so the probability to find that the evaluation changes drastically is dramatically more little when going from ply 50 to 51. A program that just takes a look at the possible moves for a possition and performs an evaluation plays much more than 50 points weaker than other that looks at the opponents answers. The probability of an incorrect evaluation is almost 1. But if we speak of ply 50, as the probability is smaller, the difference in rating points is smaller too. José C.
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.