Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 07:14:16 07/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2002 at 08:29:14, José Carlos wrote: >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. Magic thinking is a polite paraphrasing! Perhaps you get it now -> Look at this: you insulted Uri for having less experience in chess programming (!) than Ed, but Uri was talking about something where the experience of _programming_ was no point at all, therefore you attacked _me_ (!), insulting me that Dann had to explain to me something in hundreds (!!) of posts. However the truth was that Dann was one of very few who _supported_ my critic of SSDF, therefore a fact _you_ were angry about me ... who had written in R.G.C.C. (!!) - So backwards, it's because I have written in R.G.C.C. you have the right to insult Uri for having less experience than Ed in computerchess programming? :-)) My question was if such looped *"magic"* thinking were favorable for chess programming. Rolf Tueschen
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.