Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:42:50 07/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2002 at 07:19:36, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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. > >Are you sure? I do not understand. Simple for the machines? Or from the chess? >Please give us one or two examples out of your experience. > >Rolf Tueschen Positions when programs can get depth 16 in games that are not correspondence games are usualy simple positions(there is a forced line or it is an endgame). machines tend to change their mind more often at big depth in complicated positions in the middle game. Uri
This page took 0 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.