Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 14:16:05 07/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 13, 2002 at 16:57:51, José Carlos wrote: >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. No reason to become so upset only because I told you not to insult Uri. You have insulted him on his lack of intelligence and your argument was a very weak one. Uri must be wrong because he told you something different to Ed Schröder. As I told you then - you should take some lessons in interdisciplinary interactions. That would also cure you from the hybris of seeing yourself better (or perhaps on the top) than Uri only because you have "programmed" a few things. BTW since when you believe in the magic of getting rid of some false guesses, you wrote, just with a little irony? Are you no longer responsible then for what you've said? Who taught you such strange nonsense? ;-) Rolf Tueschen
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.