Author: walter irvin
Date: 09:05:13 01/04/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 04, 2000 at 09:41:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... i think proof of what you are saying can be found at ssdf .the actual (elo) difference top to bottom is far less than what they have listed .the ssdf list is almost 100% made up of computer vs computer games .i also think that people look at that list and believe that equals a uscf or fide elo and then see the big jumps on the list with faster hardware .so they automaticly think that if they get a faster computer they will get 150 to 200 elo points based on the list .i think a much more realistic place to examine a computer programs elo is icc . at least you have lots of games vs human and computers .and you can also see the difference based on bullit,blitz,standard ect .
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.