Author: chandler yergin
Date: 22:09:12 10/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 2005 at 00:53:54, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 18, 2005 at 22:07:38, chandler yergin wrote: > >>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 meant in my post to sacrifice some level of error for extra search depth. >Of course increasing history threshold does not sacrifice speed for extra depth >and I did a mistake when I wrote speed. > >I meant to copy what the poster posted to show that by his logic there is a >simple way to increase Fruit's rating but unfortunately I trusted my memory >instead of using copy and paste and I did not copy it correctly(for some reason >I wrote speed instead of some level of error). > >Uri Thank you
This page took 0.02 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.