Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:41:20 01/04/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 04, 2000 at 00:17:29, walter irvin 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. >> >>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. >> >>We may never know what doubling does vs GM players because we need a lot of data >>and it is not coming very quickly. > >if a program is one of the top ones like fritz,hiarcs,rebel,shredder,cm >5+++,crafty ect .then a speed up will help vs people .the thing is what ply is >reached .i mean if you double the speed but do not even get 1 extra ply then you >may not get anything .lets take crafty for example ,crafty at 14 ply vs kasparov >would easily go to kasparov .but crafty at 20 ply i think it goes the other way >.but the speed increase would have to be massive . > >also i can prove that a speed up increases elo .take cm2100 , very weak on a >4mhz pc .i can easily destroy it .the mach IV master could beat it spoting a >queen .but when you run cm2100 on a 300 mhz pc then it beats the mach IV even up >.plus i have to work hard and lose some games and feel lucky to draw .the elo >difference between 200 mhz and even 600 mhz may not be more than 100 points at >slow time controls .but the difference between 200 mhz and say 200 (ghz) would >be very obvious to anyone who played it or seen it play .if you could run crafty >on icc at 200 ghz ,you would be unlucky to lose 1 game out of 5000 at blitz or >bullit .i think at that speed no computer would stand a snowballs chance .the >GM's would have the same chance to win the power ball or a state lottery .now at >standard time controls if you could reach 200(thz) then the same results im sure >.the reason i believe this is because at some point tactical ability and >strategy merge .at 20 + ply its no longer just tactics it is strategy . I wouldn't disagree here at all. All I have said is this: If you play the same program on two machines, one macine is faster than the other, you will get a rating difference of X between the two programs, X varying depending on how much faster one machine is than the other. If you play the same program vs a group of humans, and vary the hardware as above, you will get a rating difference if Y between the faster and slower computer. I believe that Y << X which means that using faster hardware _only_... produces less improvement vs humans than it does against computers...
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.