Author: José Carlos
Date: 01:57:21 07/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2002 at 01:38:40, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 13, 2002 at 19:05:35, José Carlos wrote: > >>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. > >You did not insult me for lack of intelligence but you said that you find it >strange that I disagree with Ed when Ed has a lot of experience about chess >programming and I am new in the task of chess programming. > >I think that the fact that I am new in chess programming was not relevant for >the discussion because I do not need to be a programmer to have an opinion about >data that everyone can see after hours of analyzing. > >I doubt if Ed has more experience than me in giving programs hours to analyze >and looking if the program changes it's mind. > >The data that Ed gave is from games and if programs can get depth 16 >in games then the position is relatively simple so the program usually does not >change it's mind. > >Note that I believe in diminishing returns but I still expect significant gain >from hardare in the near future. > >I believe that the difference in comp-comp games at 24 hours per move may be >only 40 elo from doubling the speed and not 70 elo but 40 elo is still >significant. > >Uri My comment was about you "expecting" where Ed was providing experimental data, nothing more nothing less. Then I asked you for data, you posted some logs and I find them interesting. That's all. Rolf just invented some nonsense to create mess. That's his style. 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.