Author: José Carlos
Date: 15:04:56 07/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2002 at 07:03:35, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On July 14, 2002 at 04:57:21, José Carlos 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. >>> >>>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. > >Some people find it helpful to crucify the reporter who reported their own >mistakes. That is telling! You brought the indecent argument that Ed were >programmer and Uri NOT. That alone is telling. Because the one had nothing >to do with the other in the question that was debated here. Uri understood it. I've already explained it to you. I won't explain it again. I'm not so patient as Dann. > Even now you didn't have the "idea" to apologize. _You_ should apologize. But I don't care at all what you do. You want to mess and you do it. Well, if you enjoy that... >Instead you created a new >insult against me. I should be responsible for the mess you brought yourself >into. That is telling! Very telling. > >Rolf Tueschen You keep on looking at the mirror, instead of looking at me. Your words tell about yourself. I find it funny. José C.
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.