Author: José Carlos
Date: 04:09:02 07/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 13, 2002 at 05:35:24, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 12, 2002 at 19:16:31, José Carlos wrote: > >>On July 12, 2002 at 14:56:11, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>Hi CCC, >>> >>>In Rebel I maintain a statistic file, on every iteration a counter is >>>incremented with 1 (see column 2) representing the iteration depths Rebel has >>>searched. When a new best move is found a second counter is incremented with 1 >>>(see column 3) representing how many times a new best move has been found on the >>>given iteration depth, between brackets the percentage is calculated. >>> >>>As you can see the very first plies Rebel often changes to new best moves, >>>however when the depth increases and increases the chance Rebel will change its >>>mind drops and drops. From 16 plies on the chance a new better move is found is >>>below 2%. >>> >>>I wonder what this all means, it is still said (and believed by many) that a >>>doubling in computer speed gives 30-50-70 elo. That could be very well true for >>>lower depths but the below statistic seem to imply something totally different, >>>a sharp diminishing return on deeper depths. >>> >>>Interesting also is colum 4 (Big Score Changes), whenever a big score difference >>>is measured (0.50 up or down) the percentage is calculated. This item seems to >>>be less sensitive than the change in best move. However the maintained "Big >>>Score Changes" statistic is not fully reliable as it also counts situations like >>>being a rook or queen up (or down) in positions and naturally you get (too) many >>>big score fluctuations. I have changed that and have limit the system to scores >>>in the range of -2.50 / +2.50 but for the moment have too few games played to >>>show the new statistic. >>> >>>Anyway the number of positions calculated seem to be more than sufficient (over >>>100,000) to be reliable. The origin came from extensive testing the latest Rebel >>>via self-play at various time controls. >> >> Hi Ed, if I get this right, the second column (moves searched) is the number >>of positions in which the program has reached the depth given by column 1. If it >>was really "moves", there would be about 3x in depth 2 than in depth 1. >> Then the idea is that many more changes happen in low depths because the >>program is there many more times, so I (ignoring "Big Changes") calculated a >>couple of other numbers: >> The ratio moves changes / moves searched and the relative % of changes from >>ply to ply: >> >> SEARCH OVERVIEW >> =============== >> >> (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) >>Depth Moves Moves Moves Changed / rel % of changes from >> Searched Changed Moves Searched ply n-1 to n >> >> 1 113768 0 = 0.0% 0 >> 2 113768 44241 = 38.9% 0.388870333 >> 3 113768 34262 = 30.1% 0.30115674 77.44% >> 4 113194 32619 = 28.8% 0.288168984 95.69% >> 5 113191 30697 = 27.1% 0.271196473 94.11% >> 6 108633 28516 = 26.2% 0.262498504 96.79% >> 7 108180 25437 = 23.5% 0.235135885 89.58% >> 8 102782 22417 = 21.8% 0.218102391 92.76% >> 9 82629 15400 = 18.6% 0.186375244 85.45% >>10 59032 9144 = 15.5% 0.154899038 83.11% >>11 39340 5183 = 13.2% 0.131748856 85.05% >>12 23496 2350 = 10.0% 0.100017024 75.91% >>13 12692 957 = 7.5% 0.075401828 75.39% >>14 6911 396 = 5.7% 0.057299957 75.99% >>15 4032 193 = 4.8% 0.047867063 83.54% >>16 2471 72 = 2.9% 0.029138001 60.87% >>17 1608 26 = 1.6% 0.016169154 55.49% >>18 1138 17 = 1.5% 0.014938489 92.39% >>19 921 6 = 0.7% 0.006514658 43.61% >>20 795 7 = 0.9% 0.008805031 135.16% >>21 711 1 = 0.1% 0.00140647 15.97% >>22 636 2 = 0.3% 0.003144654 223.58% >>23 574 5 = 0.9% 0.008710801 277.00% >>24 507 1 = 0.2% 0.001972387 22.64% >>25 451 3 = 0.7% 0.006651885 337.25% >>26 394 1 = 0.3% 0.002538071 38.16% >>27 343 2 = 0.6% 0.005830904 229.74% >>28 296 2 = 0.7% 0.006756757 115.88% >>29 269 0 = 0.0% 0 0.00% >> >> Column (D) means the probability at a certain position at a certain depth to >>get a change, according to your data, for a random position (I assume you chose >>random positions, because this data comes from real games). > >No > >I assume that the positions that was searched to big depthes like 16 are only >positions that the program had enough time to search in the game to depth 16. > >These positions are not random positions from games. >I expect in random positions from games to see at least 10% changes at depth 16. > >Uri It's interesting that Ed, who has been doing chess programming for a lot of years rely on statistical data, and you, absolute newbie to chess programming can 'expect'. Quite amazing. José C.
This page took 0.01 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.