Answers.Body: <p>At those timescales, communication between computers becomes a problem. For instance, it takes more than a millisecond (10<sup>-3</sup> s) for me to ping my router. Even if you install a sort of timekeeper program on the computer itself, CPU clocks aren't reliable on such small timescales.</p>
  
  <p>Instead, it might be more interesting to run them on slower hardware.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-06-28T14:25:55.410Z
Answers.Text: Both engines could run on the same computer, which eliminates that problem. Still, 10^-10 seconds is way too short to compute anything meaningful.
Answers.UserDisplayName: itub
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-06-27T05:54:22.197Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-06-27T05:54:22.197Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Glorfindel
Answers.Body: <p>You overestimate how fast computers are. At 10<sup>-10</sup> seconds, you are close to the single machine instruction timescale. That is, "how much is 2+2?", not "evaluate a chess position", let alone play an entire game. At 10<sup>-5</sup> you could do a pretty shallow evaluation. It would be an interesting programming exercise but in terms of chessplay quality I'm not sure it would mean much. My guess is that for a game between engines to be somewhat meaningful it would need to take several orders of magnitude longer than that.</p>
  
  <p>Throwing more CPUs or GPUs at the problem, you can greatly increase computing capacity, but I don't think that would help you play such fast games due to communication overhead and other factors. One thing you can do, however, is play many games in parallel. You could have a match on a supercomputer where two engines play thousands of games at the same time, and see which engine wins more. The entire match could be over in seconds of "wall clock time".</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-06-28T14:16:54.540Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-06-28T14:26:27.313Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2017-06-28T14:26:27.313Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: itub
Answers.Body: <p>No. The computer-vs-computer tournaments are usually several seconds per move.</p>
  <p>Humans can't even watch games that are any faster than that anyway.</p>
  <p>And if you want to watch very strong matches (why not, right? who wants to watch noob chess?) then computers need at least that much time.</p>
  <p>You could have something decent with 1E-2 moves, but again, there's little interest.</p>
  <hr />
  <p>Speed matches are interesting between humans because an hour-long game is a long to play and watch.</p>
  <p>But computers play bullet chess anyway; there's no incentive to make it even faster.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-04-11T02:31:36.900Z
Answers.Text: It doesn't matter if it's too fast to watch, as games can be recorded.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brian McCutchon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-04-11T18:55:57.410Z
Answers.Text: @BrianMcCutchon, yeah but it's not like making it 100x faster makes it 100x more convenient to watch.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Paul Draper
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-04-09T22:20:32.433Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-04-11T19:39:29.767Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2021-04-11T19:39:29.767Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Paul Draper
Answers.Body: <p>For ultra-low timescales the computers would at best have time for a 1 ply search. So you'd be figuring out the best &quot;shallow search&quot; evaluation function. Possibly bullet players would be interested in the parameters of such a search function because I suspect they differ from search functions designed to perform well for deep searches.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-06-27T12:47:51.487Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-04-11T20:03:26.613Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2021-04-11T20:03:26.613Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: nak3c
Answers.Body: <p><strong>Little blitzer</strong> is the perfect solution. But in this case, you can't see the live  tournament games, but you can save and replay them after pgn file generated. It only takes few seconds to complete a game of 100 moves. But using the little blitzer is little tricky and you will it difficult.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-11-11T02:37:46.460Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2023-11-11T02:37:46.460Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Noori
Body: <p>I am wondering if there are chess games or tournaments between engines, with a very small duration, like 10<sup>-5</sup> seconds or 10<sup>-10</sup> seconds (every game). If not, would it not be interesting?</p>
  
Tags: <engines><tournament><time-control><time-management>
Title: Very fast chess games-tournaments between engines
ThreadText: # Very fast chess games-tournaments between engines
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2017-06-27)
  
  I am wondering if there are chess games or tournaments between engines, with a very small duration, like 10-5 seconds or 10-10 seconds (every game). If not, would it not be interesting?
  
  **Tags:** engines, tournament, time-control, time-management
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 5 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2017-06-27. Score: 8
  
  At those timescales, communication between computers becomes a problem. For instance, it takes more than a millisecond (10-3 s) for me to ping my router. Even if you install a sort of timekeeper program on the computer itself, CPU clocks aren't reliable on such small timescales.
  
  Instead, it might be more interesting to run them on slower hardware.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_2**: Both engines could run on the same computer, which eliminates that problem. Still, 10^-10 seconds is way too short to compute anything meaningful.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2017-06-28. Score: 3
  
  You overestimate how fast computers are. At 10-10 seconds, you are close to the single machine instruction timescale. That is, "how much is 2+2?", not "evaluate a chess position", let alone play an entire game. At 10-5 you could do a pretty shallow evaluation. It would be an interesting programming exercise but in terms of chessplay quality I'm not sure it would mean much. My guess is that for a game between engines to be somewhat meaningful it would need to take several orders of magnitude longer than that.
  
  Throwing more CPUs or GPUs at the problem, you can greatly increase computing capacity, but I don't think that would help you play such fast games due to communication overhead and other factors. One thing you can do, however, is play many games in parallel. You could have a match on a supercomputer where two engines play thousands of games at the same time, and see which engine wins more. The entire match could be over in seconds of "wall clock time".
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2021-04-09. Score: 2
  
  No. The computer-vs-computer tournaments are usually several seconds per move.
  
  Humans can't even watch games that are any faster than that anyway.
  
  And if you want to watch very strong matches (why not, right? who wants to watch noob chess?) then computers need at least that much time.
  
  You could have something decent with 1E-2 moves, but again, there's little interest.
  
  ---
  
  Speed matches are interesting between humans because an hour-long game is a long to play and watch.
  
  But computers play bullet chess anyway; there's no incentive to make it even faster.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_4**: It doesn't matter if it's too fast to watch, as games can be recorded.  
  > **username_3**: @username_4, yeah but it's not like making it 100x faster makes it 100x more convenient to watch.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2017-06-27. Score: 2
  
  For ultra-low timescales the computers would at best have time for a 1 ply search. So you'd be figuring out the best "shallow search" evaluation function. Possibly bullet players would be interested in the parameters of such a search function because I suspect they differ from search functions designed to perform well for deep searches.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2023-11-11. Score: 0
  
  **Little blitzer** is the perfect solution. But in this case, you can't see the live tournament games, but you can save and replay them after pgn file generated. It only takes few seconds to complete a game of 100 moves. But using the little blitzer is little tricky and you will it difficult.
  
  
  ---
  
  