5 ms·
It said it was winning games with 1:10-100 time control. Why would you say thats only just barely stronger?
by plopz 8y ago
It said it was winning games with 1:10-100 time control. Why would you say thats only just barely stronger?
- gamegoblin 8y agoThe Elo graph in Figure 1 of the paper suggests it is maybe 30 Elo higher (eyeballing the graph, as they don't provide exact figures).
- jeremysalwen 8y agoTime handicaps are supposed to correspond to handicaps in computational power. But here according to the paper AlphaZero is running on ~100 teraFLOPS, but the stockfish machine has about 1 teraFLOP (my best estimate based on https://www.microway.com/knowledge-center-articles/detailed-specifications-of-the-intel-xeon-e5-2600v4-broadwell-ep-processors/ https://www.microway.com/knowledge-center-articles/detailed-...). So 100:1 time control would be fair from a computational perspective (of course comparing the computational power used is more subtle than the rough calculation I did here).
- FartyMcFarter 8y agoAs far as I know, FLOPS are mostly meaningless for traditional chess engines. They don't really use floating point operations much or at all.
- jeremysalwen 8y agoI know, but it still gives you a rough measure of the amount of silicon used.
- FartyMcFarter 8y agoI don't think so. For example, GPUs have way more TFLOPS per area than CPUs.
- aurelwu 8y agoAlphaZero used a few ( I think 4 TPUs) on top of the same or roughly same CPU Count, which is not that outrageous. I think the most fair comparison would be to pick a configuration for AZ and Stockfish which uses roughly the same amount of power and is best suited for each one respectively.