Author: Thomas Logan
Date: 09:06:54 10/17/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 2005 at 10:45:49, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 17, 2005 at 10:30:21, Thomas Logan wrote: > >>On October 17, 2005 at 10:10:58, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>I am now surprised by the big drop in the CEGT rating of my Fruit personality. >>> >>>It was already 2806 after 92 games and now it is 2748 after 223 games. >>> >>>I also remember possible error of 61 elo after 92 games but even if the real >>>rating is 61 elo lower than 2806 then I still do not expect the rating to change >>>so fast. >>> >>>This is surprising also because results that I read earlier not by CEGT >>>supported my personality. >>> >>>I wonder if the real error is not higher than the error that is written >>> >>>I wonder what is the reason for the big drop and if there was no problem in the >>>matches against spike and Jonny that seem to be the main reason for the drop in >>>my personality(did the same tester play these matches?). >>> >>>possible source of mistakes in the results. >>> >>>1)testing in different hardware relative to previous fruit. >>> >>>The claim of the CEGT is that they test with hardware that is equivalent to 2 >>>ghz PIV but the problem is that there is no equivalence and it is possible that >>>one program likes more one processor and not another processor. >>> >>>2)testing different positions and not the same positions that were tested by >>>earlier version. >>> >>>3)testing against different opponents. >>> >>>Uri >> >>Hi Uri >> >>What personality is that ? >> >>Was it released ? >> >>Tom > >This personality is reducing the history threshold from 70 to 50. >It was discussed earlier in this forum. > >No more changes except that change. >I simply analyzed some of Fruit's games and found that reducing the threshold to >50 could prevent some mistakes of fruit because fruit can find the right move >faster with history threshold=50. > >I did not test it in games but people not from CEGT who tested it in blitz >reported good result and the idea to change it from 70 to 50 was based on >analyzing long time control games and not based on analyzing blitz games. > >Uri Ok I saw that discussion. Had not some combined that with a change in king safety to 104 ? Tom
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.