Author: Günther Simon
Date: 10:49:10 01/20/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2006 at 13:41:20, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On January 20, 2006 at 11:51:48, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On January 20, 2006 at 05:28:47, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On January 20, 2006 at 04:58:11, enrico carrisco wrote: >>> >>>>On January 20, 2006 at 03:14:09, Mike Byrne wrote: >>>> >>>>>http://www.chessolympiad-torino2006.org/eng/index.php?cav=1&dettaglio=309 >>>>> >>>>>good stuff... >>>> >>>>Yea -- he even cited the "Anti-computer chess expert" Pablo Ignacio Restrepo. >>>>What more would we need? >>>> >>>>-elc. >>> >>> Yes, this, and then also the point that not automatically everything which is >>>quoted by a GM, here GM Golubev, is similar to Newton's Gravitation Law Paper or >>>Einstein's paper on Relativity. It's a bogus more or less. I want to add a >>>single item so that my opinion doesnt look like a cheap arbitrariness. >>> >>>The CEGT test guys are mentioned (I think some 15 persons) and it sounds as if >>>they were a sort of institution for certain questions in CC. Comparable to what >>>we meant when we spoke of "the new SSDF list" in the 90's. The problem begins if >>>I question that Rybka is already proven the strongest engine today. Then people >>>tell me to look at CEGT where that has been proven... This was a few days ago >>>here in CCC. I must object to such sort of hybris. The truth is that we dont >>>have statistical methods for making such claims. Even after 700 or maybe over >>>1000 games the significance is not so sure and if you look at the +/- boundaries >>>of the so called Elo results then you still have overlappings and you cant say >>>that Rybka is the clear first. - Nothing against the testers of CEGT. The >>>presentation of the results is nice. The games download is also well organised. >>>But all that can't hide the fact that we have certain statistical requirements >>>which must be respected if one wanted to make clear statements. We are all too >>>human. In a world of huge uncertainties and big problems overall, we feel the >>>need to do something for our wellness in such a hobby. Where if not there could >>>we find our peace of mind? We can test. We can create a whole network of >>>testers. But if we then want to make clear statements, alas, we are all standing >>>under the steel hard laws of stats. And basically we cant get what we want to >>>have. We are bound to believe in our private preferences. We can also assume >>>that actually, for a short time, Rybka is "certainly" looking like a very strong >>>engine. But everything above that would be bogus. We should all keep that in >>>mind. The development in CC is always moving. THere is no such thing as the best >>>alltime engine for the next 10 years. If I would get the newest super computers >>>of the US military, it could well be that I become the next World Champion with >>>Gullydeckel, to give an absurd example, or with my personal shooting star The >>>Roaring Thunder which was developed in my kitchen for the next WCCC in Torino... >>>I degress a little bit. >> >>Here are the CEGT single processor results >> >>I ignore single processor result > >It striked me with a sort of importunateness when I read today the campaign by >Simon/Pittlik? and Lagershausen and when I read your lecture here, dear Uri, I'm >quite sure that it's impossible to tell people the complex truth, if they are >used to believe in simple truths. I have learned long enough how careful one >should be in statistics. Honestly Uri, what you are doing here is unallowed. You >cant take a list with results and then simply remove certain entries and THEN >compare with their results included. That is your first crass mistake. Of course >also I do know that you cant simply compare 1-processor with 2-processor progs. >And that wasnt at all what I was trying to do. > > >> >>You can see that single processor programs have less than 2800 when even the 32 >>bit version of rybka has bigger rating than 2815 when the top 64 bit version >>even has more than 2850. >> >>No over lapping >> >>1 Rybka 1.01 Beta 9 64-bit opt 2921 73 68 71 80.3 % 2677 33.8 % >>2 Rybka 1.0 Beta 64-bit 2859 21 21 765 68.4 % 2725 32.7 % >>4 Rybka 1.0 Beta 32-bit 2825 10 10 3575 68.9 % 2687 31.0 % >>6 Fruit 2.2.1 2786 8 8 5035 66.0 % 2671 33.1 % >>7 Fritz 9 2782 11 11 2724 62.8 % 2691 30.2 % >>9 TogaII 1.1a 2772 14 14 1560 60.3 % 2699 36.3 % >>10 Hiarcs 10 Hypermodern 2771 22 22 644 53.3 % 2749 35.7 % >> >>The only entry of CEGT that in theory can have more than 2800 on one cpu is deep >>fritz8 but deep fritz8 2 cpu has less than 2800 and it is illogical to expect >>deep fritz8 on one cpu more than it >> >>8 Deep Fritz 8 2CPU 512MB 2772 14 14 >>15 Deep Fritz 8 1CPU 2754 107 104 >> >>The fact that in part of the other lists rybka is number 1 without an advantage >>that is significant enough probably also increase the certainty that rybka is >>the best engine because the probability of something that is not the best to get >>first place in every serious list is very small. >> > > >Let's come here to the second crass mistake in your arguments. You see the >result of first place for Rybka like I do that and you conclude that this must >have a proof signal as such. That is the mistake already. Because you conclude >that place one means best strength as such. NB that with stats you measure and >then you claim that your measurement has a validity. Because you kept everything >of importance under control. I simply object that this is wrong for the actual >situation because - as I have already debated with Bob Hyatt - Rybka is in the >initiative actually while all others must react now or tomorrow. But what the >results show is the improments of Rybka against unchanged older progs. And I >claim, without great risks, that any strong program will get in advantage, if >the others couldnt react yet. Rating lists don't show ratings of the future versions. I doubt Bob discussed astrology with you. The thread is about today not about future strength, no idea why you changed the topic. Ah wait I know why you changed it ;) Guenther
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.