Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:20:20 09/01/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 01, 1999 at 14:01:37, blass uri wrote: >On September 01, 1999 at 09:35:57, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 01, 1999 at 08:57:57, blass uri wrote: >> >>>On September 01, 1999 at 07:47:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On September 01, 1999 at 06:11:23, odell hall wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hi >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Is there a huge difference in terms of elo points between rebel 10 on the >>>>>K6-600 amd and what my system K6-II350 ? The rebel page suggest that the >>>>>diffence is very minor, 2554 for k6-amd and 2576 for k6600? The reason I am >>>>>asking is because i am getting a little obssesed with the need to have the >>>>>strongest program, even though I could not beat rebel on my 486!!! I am >>>>>wondering if it would really be worth it to upgrade? What's a few rating points? >>>>>I probally would not notice the difference anyway. I notice also that my rebel >>>>>found all the moves of schroeders Amdk6 600 in the last grandmaster challenge. >>>> >>>> >>>>As I have said before, if you double the speed, your 2x faster rebel will >>>>be about 70 points better than the slower one, when they play each other. >>>>Against humans, there is too little data but it is certain that the 2x faster >>>>one won't be 70 points better than humans it was playing equal with at the >>>>slower speed... >>> >>>We have information that it is the case about p200MMX vs p90 >>>but we do not have information if it is the same at tournament time control for >>>faster hardware. >>> >>>The only way to prove that it is the case or to prove the opposite is by playing >>>games with faster hardware. >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>Actually we do have this. The first such experiment was run on horribly slow >>hardware years ago. Then Ken Thompson did the same with his belle machine and >>got the same results although at least 100X faster hardware was used. Hitech >>did the same thing for longer time controls. All three agreed. Monty Newborn >>and Ernst both investigated searching way deeper which simulates faster hardware >>than anything other than Deep Blue has, and they _both_ found that deeper is >>still better... with no 'tapering off' at least thru ply 15 in the middlegame. >> >>I'm convinced that faster = better, and that it is still linear and not getting >>worse. > >I am not convinced that it is still linear. >The only proof can be by games and not by the probability to change your mind or >to find a new move because it is possible that the new move does not change the >result. > >There is a point when it stop to be linear because you cannot improve forever >and it is not clear where is this point. > >I know results of many games of pentium200 vs p90 at tournament time control but >I do not know the same for faster hardware(p450 vs p200). > >Uri The first examples I gave _were_ from games. First using 'tinkerbelle', then using belle, then using hitech. All three produced similar win/lose percentages over shallower/slower searches, even though the games played with tinkerbelle and then belle didn't go as deeply as later games...
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.