Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Russek -Rebel Match, Game 2

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 17:43:01 01/03/00

Go up one level in this thread


On January 03, 2000 at 18:21:53, Bertil Eklund wrote:

>On January 03, 2000 at 16:53:35, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On January 03, 2000 at 03:25:35, Bertil Eklund wrote:
>>
>>>On January 02, 2000 at 07:08:32, Rajen Gupta wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>  Doubling the speed of the engine is supposed to produce an increase of about
>>>>>>>60 elo points.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I do not think that this assumption is right against humans.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Uri
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Why?
>>>>>
>>>>>Bertil
>>>>Hi all;i think the answer is best summed up by what bob hyatt has been saying
>>>>all along-ie a chain is only as strong as its weakest link and in the case of
>>>>computer chess this weak link consists of lack of long range and startegic
>>>>planning and lack of positional understanding-once this weak link is identified,
>>>>it can be attacked by a good enough chess player anfd further increases in
>>>>computer hardware wouldn't make much difference.in computer vs computers on the
>>>>other hand are playing to each others strenghths rather than weaknesse so
>>>>hardware increse would show up significantly-i think this has been pretty clear
>>>>from the inability of rebel to have a plus score against grandmasters
>>>>
>>>>rajen
>>>
>>>Hi!
>>>
>>>Mr Hyatt has already answered on this with two tongues, yes. He admits though,
>>>that his Crafty on quad Xeon is better than his Scrappy on quad Pentium Pro.
>>>
>>>When did it happened that the increase of speed stopped programs from playing
>>>better? With the step from 286 to 386, from 386-486 or is it the step from
>>>Pentium to Pentium2 or perhaps Deep Thought on one, four or sixteen cpu´s.
>>>
>>>Bertil
>>
>>
>>I don't answer "with two tongues".  I have said _many_ times, "computer vs
>>computer games tend to exaggerate the rating difference between the two programs
>>when only one thing is changed."  It has been common knowledge that a machine
>>twice as fast will enjoy a <roughly> 60-70 point advantage over the _same_
>>program on the original (1/2 speed) hardware.  This number was not a guess.  It
>>was gleaned from years of testing on faster and faster hardware by many
>>different people...  From the SSDF to IM Larry Kaufman.  But it is only valid
>>in the context it was tested, machine vs machine.  There is _nothing_ that
>>suggests that 2x hardware is 60-70 Elo points better against _human_ players.
>>
>
>A doubling of the speed gave about 60-70 Elo in the past with 486 and Pentium
>this was more or less proved in those days, and I guess it is still the same in
>blitz/speed-games against humans. When was the day (cpu) when this formula
>stopped working against humans? Was it the same day as Aegon began with
>increments or humans play one game matches against computers (with
>double-increments).


It didn't "stop working".  It "never worked".  The data has never been
produced.  No one has taken a stable group of human players and then tried
(say) program X on a Pentium 60, then a 120, then a 240, then a 480, to
see the difference.  Everyone has been much more concerned/excited about
program vs program comparisons.



>
>BTW a P800 vs a P400 is only 60-70% faster.


depends.  For Crafty, a P6/200 vs a xeon/400 is pretty much 2.0 faster.




>
>>Such data is more difficult to obtain because no one plays that many games and
>>records the results.  But I agree with Uri.  Against a GM, a program that would
>>have a fide rating of X on a PII/400 would not have a rating of X+60 on a
>>PII/800 processor.  In many cases the improvement will be zero, because often
>>depth is not the only issue.  Knowledge comes into play, and depth doesn't
>>always equate with more knowledge.
>
> Yes over a single game the improvement can be zero, if the programs evaluation
>is totally wrong it can be weaker, but if the zero-case is true why don´t play
>the same game on half the time.
>
>>We may never know what doubling does vs GM players because we need a lot of data
>>and it is not coming very quickly.
>
>Absolutly true.
>
>Bertil



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.