Author: José Carlos
Date: 16:03:05 07/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2002 at 18:18:32, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On July 14, 2002 at 18:04:56, José Carlos wrote: > >>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. > >Another change of the truth. Uri wrote the almost exact phrase I addressed to >you. Period. > >> >>> 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... > >You should stop to project your character onto others. Period. _You_ should. Period. >> >>>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. > >This is the proof. Your confession that you find it funny, you enjoy it. Yes, I confess I enjoy seeing yourself talking to the mirror. >You enjoy a mess. No I don't. I've been posting here for some years. People know I don't. Nobody believes your lies. >_Your_ mess. Again talking to the mirror. >All what I did was the reporting and the warning that >you should stop it and apologize to Uri. Now you are confused about yourself. >Again, that could be healed by your apology. To Uri, not me of course. I'm just >the observer, you cannot insult me at all. Again talking to the mirror. >For the readers I repeat what you did wrong. First you defend Uri (implying he can't himself), now you care for the readers. Man, you must be a saint. >You attacked Uri by telling him >that he were no programmer Stop this fantasy, please. I know Uri wrote Movei, which is quickly improving. Why do you think Uri is no programmer? >and he still dared to differ from Ed, who were a >programmer indeed, with opinions. I repeat I'm not so patient as Dann to explain this again to you. Read previous post for an explanation or keep showing your unability to understand it again and again. >This attack is indecent and should not >be done here in CCC. Good! Now you give me lessons how to behave in a forum! I'm so interested. I'll search rgcc archives for more lessons. >Rolf Tueschen 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.