Author: José Carlos
Date: 13:57:51 07/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 13, 2002 at 15:09:18, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On July 13, 2002 at 08:02:09, José Carlos wrote: > >>On July 13, 2002 at 07:15:53, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On July 13, 2002 at 07:09:02, José Carlos wrote: >>> >>>>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. >>> >>>Very telling about your lack of knowledge about interdisciplinary thinking. >>> >>>Rolf Tueschen >> >> Well, you needed several hundred posts from Dann to understand the simple >>concept of elo ratings. Lack of knowledge is easy to solve, while lack of >>intelligence is a real problem. >> BTW, interdisciplinary thinking has nothing to do with validating intuitions >>through experiments. >> >> José C. > >Your habits are a bit strange for CCC. You want to insult people for their >intelligence? Didn't you know that this is out of fashion? Did you feel insulted? Oh, sorry, I didn't insult you, really. >Also you cannot prove >your visions. Visions? I don't have visions. Maybe you take me for someone else ?! >But I can prove where you lack of knowledge. Look at this: > >How do you know if or when I understood Elo system? Dann didn't >explain anything to _me_, Don't feel bad because Dann had to explain that to you. It can happen to everybody. >He was the only one having the courage to give his verdict about SSDF >Elo system - _with_ me! We two the only ones. And you were dreaming of his role >as _my_ teacher? That's funny. I'm glad you enjoied Dann's lessons. Dann is very good at that. I also always enjoy his posts. >You do not understand what validity means... ;-) Good argument! >You have no idea of what interdisciplinary means too. Damn, you leave me without words! >You are the typical expert >with narrow views. Thanks for calling me expert... bah, just a little degree in computer science and a few publications don't make me an expert... >Do not insult Uri. I didn't. He knows it. BTW, do you feel the need to defend him? Don't you think he is capable to defend himself? I think it's you who is insulting Uri. >Because he knows a lot about chess. The first thing where we agree! Cheers! >Know >what I mean? Chess is the basis for computerchess. :) Words of wisdom... >Only interdisciplinary help could enlighten you. If you have questions, please >tell me, I'll try to do my best for you. > >Rolf Tueschen Thank you very much. I'll ask you anything I don't understand. 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.