Home 
Search 
Today's Posts 
#1




strength of chess computer programs vs. time
Deep Fritz defeated Kramnik in a match by 42 and plays at least at a
2800 level at classical time controls. Can someone estimate how much stronger it would be if it had much more thinking time, say 1 day per move? I think it would be interesting to have a correspondence computer assisted match between two top players. That ought to produce the highest quality of play. 
#2




strength of chess computer programs vs. time
On Jul 20, 8:40 am, Beliavsky wrote:
Deep Fritz defeated Kramnik in a match by 42 and plays at least at a 2800 level at classical time controls. Well as memory serves.. could be wrong but I think it's in this ballpark. 42 and DF10 won that is 2/3 (66%) winning. If we run the logic backwards which doesn't really apply like this after the fact. In other words predicting chances of winning with the winning/losing numbers is not what you want. You first say 66% chance of winning and see if it matches. Also there is info missing. It could be a little less than 66% to 75%(+a little more). Chances of winning based on this one match gives you an idea. Do this with many games for a more reliable number of % winning. Also more games than 6 helps much more So DF10 is about an 100elo(66%) to 200(75%) higher than Kramnik based on this one tournament with a low number of sample sets of 6 games. Can someone estimate how much stronger it would be if it had much more thinking time, say 1 day per move? 1 day(1440 mins = 1day) per move in theory would give the computer: Let's say an average game is average 3 mins per move. If we triple that number(a bit more than 3x but it's close enough for this example). 3 comes from the alphabeta pruning. It'll take time to explain, please post if anyone is curious). 3x longer gets you approx 1 move deeper. 1 move deeper is approx 100elo. mins +elo 3 0 (add 0 to the original elo ranking of the computerex: 2800) 9 100 27 200 81 300 243 400 729(1/2day) 500 2187(1.5day) 600 This linear relationship shows up with many chess computers of varying types. It's fairly close but I don't know if anyone has done this for a single computer algorithm. It may vary but statistically when averaging pcs this is what we get. So about 550 elo point more. If we started with 2800 + 550 then one day in theory 3350. How ever I've seen with my chess engine that I've been working on follows a different relationship over very long periods. If I let it think 1 day per move sometime it needs to think 5 days longer to find a better move(at least one that it thinks). So there is sorta a wall that appears that you really need something faster or diff algorithm. You may have a lot of hash cache etc but searching through memory etc can wind up taking too much time and when trying to add so much memory and enhance HW things that were insignificant for speed when computing a total of a billion moves in a few mins really hits another issue when thinking for very long periods. So those insignificant HW issues previously worked very well and fast become a factor to slow things down. As time goes up other factors become more apparent. So for smaller increases in time, I think it's more significant but over days I don't think it necessarily will help unless it's planned. Either way this is the theory as I recall. There might be some errors but the general principle is there. I think it would be interesting to have a correspondence computer assisted match between two top players. That ought to produce the highest quality of play. 
#3




strength of chess computer programs vs. time
"Beliavsky" wrote in message
ups.com... Deep Fritz defeated Kramnik in a match by 42 and plays at least at a 2800 level at classical time controls. Can someone estimate how much stronger it would be if it had much more thinking time, say 1 day per move? There wont be much increase. Not like what you'd want. Do a google search for: computer chess "technology curve" In the old days (70's & 80's) an increase in search depth (by extra time, faster system, whatever) mean a straight increase in play strength. Linear growth. Roughly 100 elo for every extra ply. However, that quickly changed. By the late 80s onward, it was fairly obvious it was a curve and not linear. The more powerful the computers got, and the better the programs, the slower the strength improvements came. There was a 'deminishing returns' to the growth of the machine power / search time. It didn't really flatten out, but it definetly went from a straight line (linear) to a much more of a curve with progressively slower growth. Probably one of the better papers on this in the early days is Szabo & Szabo: "The Technology Curve Revisited" in ICJA v11#1 (March 1988). Later tests were done, of course, but this is probably one of the first better ones to show a curve instead of a linear growth. Not everybody can agree on the exact shape of the curve, but these days, nobody in their right mind would expect a linear or even near linear growth. There has been way too much research showing diminishing returns. So, to answer your question.... Since the program is strong on its own, and assuming the system it runs on is powerful, that gets us firmly away from the linear growth and into the curve. I would guess probably 100150 elo, but that's a guess that I have no data to actually back it up with. Realistically you'd have to try it and find out. And you'd have to turn off "thinking on oppoent's time". And play hundreds of games. Considering the time limits, that's not practical unless you have a few hundred spare identical systems and are willing to wait half a year for the results. (And no, you can't reduce the time limits to get approximate results. 3 minutes to 24 hours is 480x. You can't go 1 second and 480 seconds. That would put the weaker program into a much different part of the curve and it wouldn't be able to play like it has been tuned to play.) (Also note that parallel chess programs follow a similar growth. The first few processors help a lot and as you add more, they help less and less. Modern search algorithms are better than they used to be, but using 64 processors instead of 8 is not going to make the program vastly stronger.) == Posted via Newsfeeds.Com  UnlimitedUnrestrictedSecure Usenet News== http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups = East and WestCoast Server Farms  Total Privacy via Encryption = 
#4




strength of chess computer programs vs. time
Hello wrote: In the old days (70's & 80's) an increase in search depth (by extra time, faster system, whatever) mean a straight increase in play strength. Linear growth. Roughly 100 elo for every extra ply. However, that quickly changed. By the late 80s onward, it was fairly obvious it was a curve and not linear. The more powerful the computers got, and the better the programs, the slower the strength improvements came. There was a 'deminishing returns' to the growth of the machine power / search time. It didn't really flatten out, but it definetly went from a straight line (linear) to a much more of a curve with progressively slower growth. That makes sense. How often does a computer end up in a position where the position is even after 20 plies but won after 30 plies? How often is it even after 30 plies but won after 40?  Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ 
#5




strength of chess computer programs vs. time
Neo wrote:
42 and DF10 won that is 2/3 (66%) winning. If we run the logic backwards which doesn't really apply like this after the fact. In other words predicting chances of winning with the winning/losing numbers is not what you want. You first say 66% chance of winning and see if it matches. Also there is info missing. It could be a little less than 66% to 75%(+a little more). I'm sorry but I really have no idea what you're talking about. I don't think it's a language thing: your sentences make sense individually but they don't come together in any coherent way. Dave.  David Richerby Hungry Erotic Puzzle (TM): it's like www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ an intriguing conundrum but it's genuinely erotic and it'll eat you! 
#6




strength of chess computer programs vs. time
On Jul 21, 12:41 pm, David Richerby
wrote: Neo wrote: 42 and DF10 won that is 2/3 (66%) winning. If we run the logic backwards which doesn't really apply like this after the fact. In other words predicting chances of winning with the winning/losing numbers is not what you want. You first say 66% chance of winning and see if it matches. Also there is info missing. It could be a little less than 66% to 75%(+a little more). I'm sorry but I really have no idea what you're talking about. I don't think it's a language thing: your sentences make sense individually but they don't come together in any coherent way. Sorry Dave. The answer is quite long so I tried to shorten it giving the most significant info. My response was in terms of the question and I thought the person asking had already the necessary background. Therefore I could skip over the boring part which I understood we all knew. I was responding to how much stronger would a computer become after thinking for 1 day. What I was saying was if one works out the math to estimate a computer chess strength. Given: 42 win for DF10, one may be wanting to take the math and run it backwards to figure out the elo. I am saying you get many answers to give the same 42 results. Therefore the strength of a computer will give you a statistical range not a singleton. So taking a single game of 42 DF10 winning, we cannot find a single value for our starting point. If Kramnik is 2800, and the computer wins 42. We find a range of elos. I was giving a highlow range. So if that is the best the computer does to win 42 against a player with 2800. Now the question was how strong would it be if it thought for 1 day. To know this we need a starting elo which is what I was trying to explain and give some basic idea. That idea was a range of elos. So I picked a conversative number. Again I was just trying to explain it is a little involved or complex. So to simplify there is a linear relationship. I understand some do not think so. However the case in reality is a nonlinear curve. However we can gather lots of data and find that the exponent change is linear... not really but there are a collection of points that gather along a line. Any curve or random data points can be expressed as a line. The best line that fits. Basic stat math. As far as I know... There is a linear relationship which has not changed when you look over lots of programs. Up til today it is valid. What we find is 1 move deeper yields 100 elo points. That is an estimate. That estimate does not tell you much about a specific computer program. That part is important to understand which is what I tried to convey. However statistically as we go a move deeper the exponential growth in nodes to search increases greatly. The elo increases by 100 per move deep. Therefore we can estimate how strong a computer would be if it thought for 1 day. Some believe it'd not change much or by about 100. That I do not believe to be true for programs in general. It must be much more because the program is thinking much deeper in 1 day vs 3 mins(tournament play.. mins per move on average... understand it's not exact but it's an estimate to begin with to make math simpler...at least for me Sorry Dave for the confusion. I hope I was clearer. If not, I am happy to discuss more. Dave.  David Richerby Hungry Erotic Puzzle (TM): it's likewww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ an intriguing conundrum but it's genuinely erotic and it'll eat you! 
Reply 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Forum  
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4]  rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General)  
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4]  rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General)  
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4]  rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General)  
Wikipedia Biography of Eric Schiller  alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group)  
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4]  rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 