From: hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
Subject: Re: When Deep Thought Beats Kasparov...
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:56:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.202021.15709@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.170109.16988@bnr.ca> Peter Marko <pmarko@bnr.ca> writes:
>>
>>If we apply straight-line approximation (linear regression) to the above,
>>the following results (the fact that these ratings were achieved by
>>different programs running on different platforms can be ignored as they
>>all represented the strongest machine available at the time, hence were
>>riding the general technology trend, which also follows a logarithmic
>                                                           ~~~~~~~~~~~
>You mean exponential? (That's the only way to combine the two into linear.)
>Of course, don't forget that no process can continue to grow exponentially
>for unlimited time!
>
>>curve - the rating scale is logarithmic as well):
>>
>>         Rating
>>  Year   (USCF)
>>
>>  1992    2672
>>  1993    2718
>>  1994    2765
>>  1995    2812
>>  1996    2858
>>  1997    2905   
>>  1998    2951
>>  1999    2998
>>  2000    3045
>>
>>This would seem to point to the year 1997, when the best machines will
>>surpass all humans (assuming that the difference between USCF and FIDE
>>ratings is 100 points, and that the playing strength of the top people
>>will remain essentially the same - about 2800 FIDE points).  The authors
>>of the article believed then that this time may even come by 1992, which
>>I strongly doubt.
>
>There is a big problem here. When computers become significantly stronger
>than any human, their ratings will not rise logarithmically any more, but
>much slower, because the opponents' ratings will constantly be much lower
>than their own. (Assuming of course that you don't rate games of computers
>vs. computers in the same pool, which would render all ratings meaningless.)
>
>
>>Now, to answer the second question, let me quote more numbers from the
>>article.  The authors, correlating search depth with playing strength,
>>say that each extra ply (half-move) in general search depth is equivalent
>>to a gain of about 200 points in playing strength.
>
>This again must break down.
>
>>  This is based on the
>>following:
>>
>>                Depth    Rating
>>  Computer     (Plies)   (USCF)
>>
>>  Belle           5       1560
>>  Belle           6       1860
>>  Belle           7       2090
>>  Belle           8       2200
>>  Hitech          9       2400
>>  Deep Thought   10       2600
>>
>>They further argue that, since the next-generation Deep Thought will do
>>general searches to 14-15 plies,
>
>How the hell will it suddenly improve from 10 to 14 ply????
>
>> its rating will be about 3400.
>
>Whatever. As long as top humans are rated 2700-2800, the rating ceiling is a
>little above 3000 (but probably less than 3100) and not even 'God' can achieve
>a rating higher than that.
>
>>The average game lasts about 40 moves.  Out of this, opening book is
>>about 10 moves.  This leaves us with 30 moves (60 plies) to calculate (on
>>the average) before we can declare a position won or drawn.  Given the
>>above linear approximation, we get:
>>
>>   Depth    Rating
>>  (Plies)   (USCF)
>>
>>    60       12513
>
>Consequently, Alfred E. Newman plays 20 games against Deep(est) Thought and
>gets a rating of 12513-400=12113.
>
>>estimates.  Feng-hsiung, Thomas, Murray, Andreas: are you reading this?
>
>Looking at all this garbage, I am not convinced that they CAN read.
>
>	Sven
>

*THEY* didn't write this garbage and your comment was completely uncalled
far.  The only problem I see here is that your mother and father didn't do
an acceptable job in raising you.... you lack basic politeness.


-- 
!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !