Author: Mark Young
Date: 23:53:56 05/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 1999 at 15:27:58, José Carlos 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 not saying that after a give ply number there is nothing better to find. >Of course there is. I only try to say that, as you go deeper, your evaluation of >the position is closer to the "real evaluation" (if exists something like that) Yes it exists, there is only three evaluations in chess. Mate in N, - mate in N, or draw. These are the only true evaluations of any chess position. The evaluations that programs give today are just shadows or clues to a positions true evaluation. >of the position, so the probability to find something new is smaller than when >you go from play, say, 3 to 4. So, if the probability of changing the global >evauation of the position is smaller, the gain (in term of rating points, that >was what I was talking about) is smaller too. > What I say is not based on any experiments, so it can be wrong, but seems >quiet logical, I think. > > 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.