Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 16:27:26 10/20/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 1999 at 16:27:23, Joshua Lee wrote: >>>>>This would yield the following results: >>>>> >>>>>Ply Elo Rating >>>>>=== ========== >>>>> >>>>>2 1098 >>>>>4 1386 >>>>>6 1635 >>>>>8 1855 >>>>>10 2052 > ????????? Awhile back i posted where hiarcs played the exact first 6 moves of > two different IM's for whites first six moves and blacks first 5, this is too > low. Hiarcs searches exactly 10-ply? Also, just because 6 moves were the same, does not mean _all_ the moves were the same. Further, these numbers were figured using K=0.15 for the chess-knowledge. Hiarcs may have either more or less, and so it is impossible to tell actual numbers for any program. >>>>>12 2230 >>>>>14 2392 > Again this is too low Deep Blue was atleast 2650 searching 14ply Deep Blue did not search only 14-ply. It did 14-ply brute-force, plus 30+ ply of extensions in most of the interesting lines. Not to mention that DB would probably have a K-value of greater than 0.15, which would make all the ratings on this list go up for each depth. However, I suspect that the ratings may level out a bit at the top, because the maximum theoretical ELO rating is somewhere around 3000, I believe. >>>>>16 2542 >>>>>18 2680 > That makes these atleast 300 or more elo points too low See above. >>>>>20 2809 >>>>>22 2929 >Otherwise good idea rework the numbers and we have a good indicator of strength >vs ply. >also at 1 ply Hiarcs was winning 3 out of 4 games against me so maybe at 1 ply >it is 1700 but again this is all relative to the time control. Are we talking >3min per move? Again, 1-ply doesn't necessarily mean exactly 1-ply. It means 'at least' one ply. There are always extensions and quiescence search to achieve greater apparent depth. Jeremiah
This page took 0.01 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.