So what are the improvements in the algorithm that enable such a handicapped modern engine to beat quad core old engine?
It's not Shredder 10 specifically, any engine of that era it beats running on a mere smartphone.
Even assuming the eval is vastly superior, how could this compensate all that processing power?
Shredder had a fairly balanced material value table, and eval in general.
Not much improvement in gameplay for any particular engine
My iPhone 7 plus is not nearly as powerful so I do not use it for any games
Another way of looking at it is that every speed doubling is worth 50 Elo. So work out the elo difference between SF and Shredder 10 on equal hardware, now divide that number by 50. That’s how many speed doublings your quad has to be faster than the phone. And it just can’t do it.
i only play tournaments with open source as too much plagiarism out for my tastes
In computer chess however, at least back in the Fritz days, evaluation accounted for most of the descisive games, not search, not depth, not tactics.
Vas talked about how master level human games are mainly decided by tactics, while elite computer games are decided by evaluations.
The super gm games, however are decided by "superior pruning", when accounting for why Carlsen and Kasparov so readily beats very strong gms.
>Will a move that is pruned out of the search ever be digged up again with enough time or is it forever discounted by the engine?
I suspect the latter, but I could be wrong. Perhaps it will only revisit an early discarded move if the other moves lead to fails at some depth, but this could require untenably deep calculations so wouldn't necessarily happen in practice.
>You might not know this but in human chess, superior pruning also accounts for why Kasparov, Carlsen etc beats the other top guys.
I don't think that you can really 'graft' computer calculation mechanisms onto humans so easily. Intuition and understanding based on pattern recognition is quite a different animal. Humans don't need to think 'linearly', they can imagine dream positions or piece placements that are not possible in the current position, then work towards those placements.
It would be pruning if the top players mostly calculated the same amount linearly and evaluated similarly, or that the same conclusions could only be reached via the same mental mechanism, but this simply isn't the case.
Everyone has that at super gm level. That's not what separates the very best.
>Humans don't need to think 'linearly', they can imagine dream positions or piece placements that are not possible in the current position, then work towards those placements.<
The method you are referring to is not always applicable. It's mostly in positional advantageous circumstances. There are times for brute force measures in which Carlsen, Kasparov, Kramnik definately sorts through positions superior to the middle of the road gms, combined with their positional understandings. The positional understanding allows them to sometimes enter muddy waters, when it's too difficult to even "prune it", and expect to end up in a favourable position.
and sometimes of course they simply miscalculate one of the lines. The engines equivalence is discarding a winning line.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill