Author: José Carlos
Date: 05:29:14 07/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2002 at 07:22:50, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On July 14, 2002 at 19:39:22, José Carlos wrote: > >>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. > >Since I diagnosed that logic is not the biggest talent of my opponent in the >game above and that I saw that he's a real programmer, I ask this to all, what >do you think of what is the exact definition of being a computerchess >programmer, how big is the synergy effect of computerchess programming on >general thinking processes and how large the part of own code should be that >we start to speak of a computerchess programmer. > >Note please that this is a question to all, not primarily to my opponent above, >who is very susceptible to magic thinking. For example real experts could >perhaps explain how important the imagination is above straight perception for >programmers. Are there certain parts in programming where you qua defining have >the power to establish reality against different realities of other collegues? >Is it possible to establish even different forms of logic? > >Rolf Tueschen I won't answer your lies, since everybody can read above and see that, for example, "magic thinking" is not something I'm susceptible to, but something you invented for me. Anyway thanks for your lessons on what a beeing a good programmer means. 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.