From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: When Deep Thought Beats Kasparov...
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:20:21 GMT

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

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess