Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 07:57:25 01/15/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 2006 at 10:23:33, Albert Silver wrote: >On January 15, 2006 at 10:08:23, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On January 15, 2006 at 09:38:02, Albert Silver wrote: >> >>>On January 15, 2006 at 09:22:48, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On January 15, 2006 at 08:43:13, Albert Silver wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 15, 2006 at 02:07:06, Marc Lacrosse wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Lacrosse's analysis showed above all that in the 87 positions he tested, that >>>>>>>Shredder 9 and Rybka scored 57% given 10 seconds, and Fruit and Toga and company >>>>>>>are much weaker with so little time, and thus much weaker in blitz. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Albert >>>>>> >>>>>>Just a little point, Albert. >>>>>> >>>>>>What my little experience shows is not an argument for telling that engine A is >>>>>>better or worse than engine B at faster or slower time control. >>>>>> >>>>>>What I precisely did is the following : >>>>>>let say : >>>>>>- engine A solves "x" positions in 180 seconds and >>>>>>- engine B solves "y" positions in 18o seconds. >>>>>>I recorded: >>>>>>- what percentage of "x" engine A had already solved after 10 seconds >>>>>>- what percentage of "y" engine B had already solved after 10 seconds >>>>>> >>>>>>So each engine is compared at 10 seconds with the number of positions that it >>>>>>will solve _itself_ at 180 seconds >>>>>> >>>>>>So when I record that Rybka has a 57% score and Fruit a 39%, this does _not_ say >>>>>>that Rybka is "stronger" or "weaker" than Fruit, and we could have a much weaker >>>>>>1800 elo engine getting a 80% (or a 15%) score in the same test. >>>>>> >>>>>>What the little test tends to show is just that rybka has already shown 57% of >>>>>>its own analysis capacity at 10 seconds whereas Fruit has a larger margin of >>>>>>improvement (compared with itself) when given a larger time control. >>>>> >>>>>Actually, it doesn't even show what you suggest, that Rybka has already shown >>>>>57% of it's capacity in 10 seconds, and as a consequence I'm afraid your >>>>>conclusions are incorrect. >>>>> >>>>>The positions you tested with have definite solutions I presume, thus once that >>>>>solution is reached there is no room for improvement. How can you claim that >>>>>Rybka cannot improve its analysis when the positions you gave it cannot be >>>>>improved upon after the solutions are found? >>>> >>>>Please read again: "larger margin". Does it mean "cannot improve"? >>> >>>It can't have a 'larger' margin of improvement if it is being compared to >>>something with no possible margin. >> >>This is another claim but of course you cant say anything at all if the problems >>are too easy to solve. > >It makes no difference whatsoever. > >>- Let me repeat what i wrote to Marc. His little >>experiment and discussion proves that he has done something valuable. > > >Ok, if the value of the experiment is in the debates that it created, then fine. >But the numbers and results have no value whatsoever if one wants to draw any >conclusions from them. > No way. You cant say that. This WHATSOEVER is wrong and destructive towards Marc. > Albert > >>And one aspect of this value is the inspired debates in its aftermath. Very >>seldom I can read such stuff in CCC. Hyatt comes to mind. lately several times >>Vincent and now Marc. But there is a similarity. What Vince made out of Bob you >>and Uri now tried to make out of Marc. Instead of just doing your own >>experiemts. This is how it should be. Nothing against a lively debate. But that >>now sounded as if you said: well, a hammer, very nice, but I had expected a >>spoon for a change... It's so uninspired. ;) >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>In other words, Rybka, nor any >>>>>engine, CANNOT improve the analysis after it found a solution in 10 seconds >>>>>because there is no improvement possible. Mate is mate, and a win is a win. >>>>>
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.