Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:28:13 09/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 24, 2001 at 09:56:50, Sonja Tiede wrote: >>>>Against humans, there is no real data. If you are talking about taking a >>>>program on an XXX megahertz machine, and playing it against a program on >>>>a 2*XXX megahertz machine, then the faster machine will be rated about 60 >>>>points higher, using the typical Elo formula. I don't think that +60 will >>>>be true for games vs humans, however. It might be 1/2 of that or even less. >>> >>> >>>Take 2 programs, one with 2000 SSDF ELo and one with 2600 SSDF Elo, >>>assume the 2000 value is true against humans. >>>Do you really think the other programm has a human-strength of less than 2300 , >>>since all SSDF elo-values are based on comp-comp matches ? >> >> >>It is certainly possible. But more likely, take a 2500 SSDF program and a >>2650 SSDF program and play them against humans, it is likely they will produce >>similar results... > >Ok. Your example is true, but in my opinion this (your example 2500&2650) is >a result of a 'tuned' book and book learning, and not a result of a generall >'lack' in measuring the playing strength only with comp-comp matches. > >What i want to say is, >(1) that book learning does improve the comp-comp >'winning rate' but the overall playingstrength is not going to be improved, >even not in the opening!!! However, this has nothing to do with a +60 Elo improvement due to hardware speed. I am assuming that the _program_ is the same in both cases, which is the only reasonable way to evaluate hardware speed improvements. >The convergence-rate of todays book-learning algorithm is _extremly_ slow, and >if you observe a overwhelming 150-50 result with similar comp-comp-opponents >(prg A vs. prg B, prg A book-learning enabled) you are witness of some other >'effects' but you cannot be sure that program A is better. Again, If you take the same two programs, and vary _only_ the hardware, then any difference _must_ be the hardware. SSDF is not passing learning info around between the testers. Most programs that I know of (Crafty being the one exception) don't have an external portable learning file... > >In generall , when both programs are using book-learner the variance is rising >up , and you need thousands of games to get an result that reflects >the true playing strength. > > >(2) the book that is shipped originally with a programm is not tuned >to be good in general (in chess theory), it is tuned to play 'succesful' against >the most important competitors Again, true. But it won't affect the results of different hardware matches. > >(3) comp-comp matches without the 'lack' of (1)+(2) are to be determined >better been suitable the playing strength than comp-human games, since a >single human would apply point (1).
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.