software improvement question

[Uri Blass]

There is a discussion in the hiarcs forum about the question how much software improvement are since 1989.



see page 5 of the discussion
http://hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic.php? ... c&start=60

Nick claims in the second post of the that page:

"That blows my theory and suspicion that an engine (any engine) reputed to be the best in the world would show at its best a max 150-200 Elo improvement as a software compared to for example the Spracklen Software of 1989 inside a V10"

I think that this theory is clearly wrong when one of the problems is that programmers today do not work to optimize their program to the V10 and with all the knowledge that we have today if programmers work to optimize their program to the hardware of 1989(that mean same search algorithm but with better design of data structure for example in case of bitboard programs not to use bitboards that are probably slow in V10 and in case of toga something else that I do not know) it will be possible to see at least 400 elo improvement even by toga.

What is your opinion?

Uri

[F. Bluemers]

I think that this theory is clearly wrong.......it will be possible to see at least 400 elo improvement even by toga.

Hi Uri,

Didn't the poster just said his theory was wrong ( "That blows my theory...).maybe i misread it somehow?

why start the same or similar discussion here too?
just asking,I know you will disagree,agreed?

Best
Fonzy
[/list]

[Dann Corbit]

There is a discussion in the hiarcs forum about the question how much software improvement are since 1989.



see page 5 of the discussion
http://hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic.php? ... c&start=60

Nick claims in the second post of the that page:

"That blows my theory and suspicion that an engine (any engine) reputed to be the best in the world would show at its best a max 150-200 Elo improvement as a software compared to for example the Spracklen Software of 1989 inside a V10"

I think that this theory is clearly wrong when one of the problems is that programmers today do not work to optimize their program to the V10 and with all the knowledge that we have today if programmers work to optimize their program to the hardware of 1989(that mean same search algorithm but with better design of data structure for example in case of bitboard programs not to use bitboards that are probably slow in V10 and in case of toga something else that I do not know) it will be possible to see at least 400 elo improvement even by toga.

What is your opinion?

Uri

My opinion is that the question is a reformation of "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

How many Elo can a software program improve? Before Alpha-beta came along... Before null-move came along... before ...

Improvement moves in fits and starts and nobody can predict how big the leaps will be.

Right now, the best chess programs have a branching factor of about 2.
If that should improve to 1.5 and the quality of the moves remains the same, it would be a ridiculous improvement of many hundreds of Elo.
e.g.:
2^30 = 1,073,741,824
1.5^30 = 191,751

I think it is also a mistake to try to predict the future of hardware. It is possible that Moore's law will die on the vine, or there may be a revolution in computing that doubles the rate of growth.

[Dr.Ex]

There is a discussion in the hiarcs forum about the question how much software improvement are since 1989.



see page 5 of the discussion
http://hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic.php? ... c&start=60

Nick claims in the second post of the that page:

"That blows my theory and suspicion that an engine (any engine) reputed to be the best in the world would show at its best a max 150-200 Elo improvement as a software compared to for example the Spracklen Software of 1989 inside a V10"
I think that this theory is clearly wrong when one of the problems is that programmers today do not work to optimize their program to the V10 and with all the knowledge that we have today if programmers work to optimize their program to the hardware of 1989(that mean same search algorithm but with better design of data structure for example in case of bitboard programs not to use bitboards that are probably slow in V10 and in case of toga something else that I do not know) it will be possible to see at least 400 elo improvement even by toga.

I disagree. The Fidelity V10 has a 68040 processor 25Mhz, 1mb ram and 1mb rom. It's 64.000 moves opening library also had to fit in the rom.
It's about as strong as my Mephisto Vancouver 32 bit, which is probably 2100 Elo.
Optimized Toga on a 25Mhz processor would be tactically very weak and nowhere near 2500 Elo.

[Dirt]

Turn it around though, run both Toga and the old programs on modern hardware, and you probably would get over 400 elo difference.

[bob]

There is a discussion in the hiarcs forum about the question how much software improvement are since 1989.



see page 5 of the discussion
http://hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic.php? ... c&start=60

Nick claims in the second post of the that page:

"That blows my theory and suspicion that an engine (any engine) reputed to be the best in the world would show at its best a max 150-200 Elo improvement as a software compared to for example the Spracklen Software of 1989 inside a V10"

I think that this theory is clearly wrong when one of the problems is that programmers today do not work to optimize their program to the V10 and with all the knowledge that we have today if programmers work to optimize their program to the hardware of 1989(that mean same search algorithm but with better design of data structure for example in case of bitboard programs not to use bitboards that are probably slow in V10 and in case of toga something else that I do not know) it will be possible to see at least 400 elo improvement even by toga.

What is your opinion?

Uri

My opinion is that the question is a reformation of "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

How many Elo can a software program improve? Before Alpha-beta came along... Before null-move came along... before ...

Improvement moves in fits and starts and nobody can predict how big the leaps will be.

Right now, the best chess programs have a branching factor of about 2.
If that should improve to 1.5 and the quality of the moves remains the same, it would be a ridiculous improvement of many hundreds of Elo.
e.g.:
2^30 = 1,073,741,824
1.5^30 = 191,751

I think it is also a mistake to try to predict the future of hardware. It is possible that Moore's law will die on the vine, or there may be a revolution in computing that doubles the rate of growth.

actually, moore's law has long since died on the vine. My old PIV xeon ran at 2.8ghz. That hasn't been doubled yet, much less within the past 3 years...

[Nid Hogge]

Robert Hyatt said :

actually, moore's law has long since died on the vine. My old PIV xeon ran at 2.8ghz. That hasn't been doubled yet, much less within the past 3 years...

Ummmmm I think your'e wrong.

I mean correct me if i'm wrong but .. didn't moore's law predict that the number of _transistors_ inside the chips, not the clockspeed, is to double every 2 years??

From Wiki : "Moore's Law is the empirical observation made in 1965 that the number of transistors on an integrated circuit for minimum component cost doubles every 24 months."

P4 Northwood - 55 million transistors
P4 Prescott - 125 million transistors (less than 2 years)
Core Duo (Yonah) - 151 million Transistors
Core 2 Duo (Merom) - 291 million Transistors (Quad 582 million)
Penryn (less than 2 years from Conroe)
- 410 million transistors (coming soon)
So I think it's still pretty much alive ..

[bob]

Robert Hyatt said :

actually, moore's law has long since died on the vine. My old PIV xeon ran at 2.8ghz. That hasn't been doubled yet, much less within the past 3 years...

Ummmmm I think your'e wrong.

I mean correct me if i'm wrong but .. didn't moore's law predict that the number of _transistors_ inside the chips, not the clockspeed, is to double every 2 years??

From Wiki : "Moore's Law is the empirical observation made in 1965 that the number of transistors on an integrated circuit for minimum component cost doubles every 24 months."

P4 Northwood - 55 million transistors
P4 Prescott - 125 million transistors (less than 2 years)
Core Duo (Yonah) - 151 million Transistors
Core 2 Duo (Merom) - 291 million Transistors (Quad 582 million)
Penryn (less than 2 years from Conroe)
- 410 million transistors (coming soon)
So I think it's still pretty much alive ..

The chips are also getting bigger. I'm not sure the feature size has been reducing that much. The fab processes have improved so that larger chips (and hence more transistors) can be made while keeping acceptable yield levels...

The US DOD has a paper somewhere on the internet that discusses this and points out that at the present time, Moore's law has stretched to 36 months. And it also points out that over the past 5-6 years it has grown from 18 months in 2000, to 24 months by 2004, to 36 months in 2007. It has flattened out significantly. And this is based purely on feature size, ignoring the larger IC sizes of today I mentioned...

Moore's law is on the way out, as we knew it would be at some point...

[Nid Hogge]

Robert Hyatt wrote :

The chips are also getting bigger. I'm not sure the feature size has been reducing that much. The fab processes have improved so that larger chips (and hence more transistors) can be made while keeping acceptable yield levels...

Thanks for the answer.

I don't understand what do you mean by getting bigger.. die sizes are getting smaller!? The[45nm] penryn dual-core version has a die size of 107mm2, which is 25 percent smaller than Intel's current 65nm products.

The US DOD has a paper somewhere on the internet that discusses this and points out that at the present time, Moore's law has stretched to 36 months. And it also points out that over the past 5-6 years it has grown from 18 months in 2000, to 24 months by 2004, to 36 months in 2007. It has flattened out significantly. And this is based purely on feature size, ignoring the larger IC sizes of today I mentioned...

Moore's law is on the way out, as we knew it would be at some point...

Absolutely agreed. I've read an article some time ago that said the Moore's law controls the IT industry and not vice versa. they go by it and will do everything to make it stay alive. I excpect it to end soon as well(although you can never know..).

I think that the philosophy is getting too old to hold true. it was good back in those days where bigger=better but that's no the case now anymore.
It reminds me the MHz race not long ago with the Pentium 4's..and they gathered that smarter design is much better and efficent than stuffing as much speed as you can.

So I hope it will improve with Nehalem\whatever comes next with wiser architectures that offer better performacne per watt.

[Uri Blass]

There is a discussion in the hiarcs forum about the question how much software improvement are since 1989.



see page 5 of the discussion
http://hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic.php? ... c&start=60

Nick claims in the second post of the that page:

"That blows my theory and suspicion that an engine (any engine) reputed to be the best in the world would show at its best a max 150-200 Elo improvement as a software compared to for example the Spracklen Software of 1989 inside a V10"
I think that this theory is clearly wrong when one of the problems is that programmers today do not work to optimize their program to the V10 and with all the knowledge that we have today if programmers work to optimize their program to the hardware of 1989(that mean same search algorithm but with better design of data structure for example in case of bitboard programs not to use bitboards that are probably slow in V10 and in case of toga something else that I do not know) it will be possible to see at least 400 elo improvement even by toga.

I disagree. The Fidelity V10 has a 68040 processor 25Mhz, 1mb ram and 1mb rom. It's 64.000 moves opening library also had to fit in the rom.
It's about as strong as my Mephisto Vancouver 32 bit, which is probably 2100 Elo.
Optimized Toga on a 25Mhz processor would be tactically very weak and nowhere near 2500 Elo.

In that case what is my error?

Based on the ssdf list we have:

7 Fruit 2.2.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2837 21 -20 1224 64% 2734

I think that we can assume that toga that is stronger than fruit on 1600 mhz that is better than 1200 mhz has at least fide rating 2800

I also think that we can assume that computer do not earn more than 50 elo from doubling the speed against humans.

starting with
Toga 1600 mhz=2800
I get
Toga 400 mhz=2700
Toga 100 mhz=2600
Toga 25 mhz=2500

Uri