Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:52:13 08/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 09, 2001 at 17:58:17, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On August 09, 2001 at 16:28:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 09, 2001 at 12:56:59, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>>On August 09, 2001 at 09:58:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>Very likely correct. This is not an easy thing to do... and trying to use >>>>program X to predict the rating of program Y, based only on how many moves they >>>>"match" looks statistically dangerous. >>>> >>>>This is essentially saying that DF played all the right moves, and any >>>>divergence by another program necessarily makes that program weaker. IE in >>>>Uri's example, DB might appear worse that DF, because they didn't agree. I'm >>>>certain it is not weaker even if they disagree 100% of the time. Based on past >>>>games... >>> >>>This is not quite true, I think. >>> >>>He's saying that Fritz has X units of strength when it moves in Y seconds. He >>>is concluding that at the point where another program has maximum agreement with >>>Fritz, it also has X units of strength. If it gets more time than that, it will >>>start to disagree with Fritz, because it is making better moves. With less >>>time, I will disagree because it is making worse moves. Let's call the time of >>>maximum agreement Y'. If Y' is less than Y, the new program is stronger, and it >>>may be possible to compute by how much, and vice versa. >> >>What happens if we put Crafty on a super-whammo 400ghz processor, and it never >>agrees with fritz? Is it weaker? That was my point. Just because a program >>disagrees with another program that is known to play at level X at that >>particular search time limit, doesn't mean that the program is either weaker or >>stronger. It just means it might be weaker, it might be stronger, or it might >>be equal but different. > >If you never reach a point of maximum agreement, that would indicate that this >method doesn't work. > >Note that I doubt that this would work for what the original poster suggests. > >If you played a game with Crafty, on an X-mhz processor, with a given time >control, there's a chance you could use this to figure out what X was. Once you >know that you could take a guess as to how strong it was on that processor. That is possible. But using Crafty to figure out how strong crafty is on a particular machine only has one degree of freedom... the hardware being used. If you use two different programs and two different machines, that is four degrees of freedom. Which is a bunch. > >All the original poster suggests is that you can do this comparison between >different programs *if* it's true that programs of a given strength tend to want >to play the same moves after the same amount of think time. > >We do this thing quite directly with tactical test suites already, but the >poster was trying to generalize it onto a big pile of positions. I know. Tactics makes some sense in this context. But not positional things, since that is not only a function of time, it is a function of incorporated knowledge. > >bruce > >>>I doubt this will work, as long as there are lots of positions where there are >>>more than one playable move. You'd be looking for information in a big blob of >>>random soup. >>> >>>bruce >> >> >>I agree. And what you find is written backward in Chinese, with Russian >>footnotes with explanations in Egyption. :)
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.