Author: José Carlos
Date: 16:39:22 07/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2002 at 19:25:34, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On July 14, 2002 at 19:03:05, José Carlos wrote: > >>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. > >Here is what Uri wrote to you: > >"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." Nothing to add to what Uri said. It's crystal clear. >Again, bringing forward such arguments is indecent. Really? Your above statement says: experiece doesn't count at all and it is indecent to make conclusions out of it. People can draw their own conclusions about your seriousness. >Saying one is programmer and >a very experienced one and the other not so experienced or beginner and so on. So what? I'm a begginer to chess programming also. The programs I write in my work have nothing to do with chess, so I only have Averno as a hobby. So what now? Do you think I'm insulting myself? Are you gonna defend me from me? :) >And you did the same with me in older discussion about SSDF and Elo and also >now. Again. Don't feel insulted because Dann had to explain you how Elo system works. >The truth is that statistics and things like that have nothing to do with >computerchess programming qualities. That's a good proof of how much do you know about computerchess and statistics. Well, maybe Dann didn't explain it so well after all. >This is not my own opinion, it's a simple truth. Oh, yes. You don't have opinions, you have simple truths. >Good idea to search rgcc. In special read my messages from August 2001 on. >All the old stuff from 1996 to 1998 is expressed by a virtually 22 y. >old young man, what many people misunderstood. :) "I'm not wrong. People don't understand me". Good argument. >Please read also my Mosaik on >Schachcomputerwelt, in German unfortunately. The address is >http://members.aol.com/mclanecxantia/myhomepage/rolfsmosaik.html Sorry, I don't speak german (lack of knowledge?). >You may have the final word. Because you are a chessprogrammer. ;) No, please, don't leave me with the final word. Continue stating your simple truths. >Rolf Tueschen 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.