Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 13:43:23 01/20/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2006 at 16:36:54, Günther Simon wrote: >On January 20, 2006 at 16:23:38, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On January 20, 2006 at 14:22:06, Günther Simon wrote: >> >>>On January 20, 2006 at 13:56:49, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On January 20, 2006 at 13:49:10, Günther Simon wrote: >>>> >>>>>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 >>>> >>>> >>>>Just relax please. I dont speak of the future. I speak of the factor you didnt >>>>reflect and couldnt control with the actual testing. Never heard about the >>>>existing advantage of a new entry? This is not about rocket science, you could >>>>well follow the debate if you could forget for a moment that you wanted to flame >>>>me... just give truth a chance. I'm wrong often enough, then you can jump on me, >>>>but this here is so trivial that you lose the debate big time. >>> >>>Your little earth hole gets smaller and smaller - big time ;-) >>>Computerchess rating lists also don't measure 'new entry psychology'. >>>Programs don't care for your psychology... >>>Every new entry would have been number 1, if it had any significant >>>influence, which is wrong, no CCC science needed. >>>Have fun to work out a 'new entry' formula together with your >>>rating program. >> >> >>I have a little question for your email address: are you volker pittlik? Because >>I never before talked to a Günter Simon. :) > >May be you as a computer/internet illiterate are not able to >decide between web hosting addresses and e-mail addresses? > >My name is Günther Simon - I forgive you omitting that silent 'h' - >and my e-mail is g.simon.rgbg*AT*t-online.de, which is a real >commercial providers address. Any further questions? ;) >If you wouldn't be as illiterate you could have done a simple google >search for my name + chess XOR computer chess, or anything similar. >It would have also helped to look up a certain other specific high level >computer chess forum... > > >G.S. I know that I know nothing, but at least I have the guts to ask questions without insulting people. As far as you mention rgsbg we will certainly meet one sunny day since I am practically from nbrg. :) Till then have a good time here in CCC, I hope you enjoy the topics even if you couldnt flame me. So, let's enjoy CC united. R.
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.