Author: chandler yergin
Date: 19:07:38 10/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 2005 at 21:07:38, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 17, 2005 at 20:58:19, Ryan B. 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 >> >> >>I could have told you that setting the history to 50 was not going to maintain a >>higher rating than keeping it at 70. > >You could not know it and we still do not have enough games to know that 50 is >weaker than 70. > > Sure it may help in analyzing some >>positions but in game situations how often does it really help? About 5% - 10% >>of games at most? > >5-10% is significant. > > A little bit extra depth helps in every game Fruit plays > >Not correct. > >this little extra depth seems to be less than 0.5 ply based on test positions >and I am sure that there are games that it changes nothing. > > so >>it makes sense to sacrifice some level of error for extra search depth. > > >By this logic it make sense also to increase the history threshold from 70 to >higher value because it is good to sacrifice speed for extra depth. I don't think you can do that. Speed means extra depth. That's the whole point of using dual Processors. > >I think that we still do not have enough data to know if 70 is better than 50 >and it only has better rating than 50 but the possible error is clearly smaller >than the rating difference. > >Uri
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.