Author: José Carlos
Date: 16:05:35 07/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 13, 2002 at 17:16:05, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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 Uri knows I didn't. It seems _you_ are not capable to understand. I'm sorry, I'm not gonna explain _you_ what I said to Uri. He understood. That's enough. Please, stop defending him from nothing. >and your argument was a very weak one. >Uri must be wrong because he told you something different to Ed Schröder. He understood me. Everybody did except you. >As I >told you then - you should take some lessons in interdisciplinary interactions. I read it the first time. No need to repeat it over and over. You seem like a parrot. >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. Oh, that's it. You see yourself worse (or maybe on the bottom). That's your problem then, don't blame me on it. >BTW since when you believe in the magic of getting rid of some false guesses, Now you tell me what I believe in? You read my mind? Don't bother, there's nothing interesting inside :) >you wrote, just with a little irony? Are you no longer responsible then >for what >you've said? Who taught you such strange nonsense? ;-) Interesting fantasy. >Rolf Tueschen As this has become completely off topic, if you want to continue the discussion email me. Otherwise, feel free to post whatever you want here. I won't answer. So, you have the chance to say the last word. Use it. 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.