Author: fca
Date: 20:52:04 08/09/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 09, 1998 at 07:35:25, Harald Faber wrote: >On August 07, 1998 at 08:35:31, fca wrote: > >>>Ed, could you explain why Rebel9 plays all the moves Rebel10 played in the Anand >>>game (Rebel black, tournament) except for only one move? This is amazing and >>>certainly no reason to get Rebel10 when the moves are 99% the same. I know this >>>question is difficult to answer, you need sales to survive. Don't see it as an >>>attack but as a reasonable question. >> >>Of course the question is valid. >> >>1. Percentage would be (40-4-1)/(40-4) == 97%, *not* 99% (40 moves in game 7, >>first 4 from R10 book) :-) Yes, you made an error of c150%!! (2.5% : 1%) >Erbsenzähler! ;-) My babelfish translates this as "Great Genius". I think that is a bit over the top, "Genius" alone would be sufficient but thanks anyway! >>2. You cannot know anyway as the times when R10 made the decision to switch to a >>given best move is not known. Time allocation is complex and never >>reproducible. permanent braiin and hash considerations make divergence more >>likely... There was no suggestion R9 would have found all those moves in the >>time actually had, or would have stuck to them. > >If I check the moves with 3min/move I am sure Rebel9 won't change in tourney >game. Do not be so sure. 3min/move is not the same as 40/2. Else we would not have separate settings for average time and tournament. Differences can become very significant as the time control approaches. And how do you know Anand's time allocation?? Also, your hardware is different unless you changed your m/b+CPU and placed your machine in a freezer! :-) >>3. Why select game 7 when in game 8 the divergence is more? > >Is it? I haven't finished checking yet but I'll tell you the result. I have, it is. Not much greater divergence, though. :-) >>4. I no more draw conclusions from 1 game for this purpose than I try to >>evaluate ELO grade from just one game... Else R10 has ELO of 2750 from this game >>(draw) :-)) ... All 8 games should be considered.... (oof - 2900! :-)) ) > >I didn't draw conclusions, it was a simple question. :-) May I not raise controversy please? :-) >>5. Elsewhere Ed has posted statistics showing an overview of analysis of many >>hundreds of positions, showing (among other things) the frequencies of >>evaluations being changed by anti-GM by various amounts, or the search times, or >>the actual move chosen. Summarising, anti-GM does seem to make quite a >>difference (good or bad is not indicated by these particular statistics :-) ) >>significantly often. Of course the type of position included in the set is >>critical, and these are I believe problem positions where you would expect >>anti-GM to perhaps be more relevant. > >Hmm, then I have to look at his site, I can't remember. Chat room, I believe. My excellent point 6 has been snipped!! >>7. R10 won the match anyway, and R9 may have won it anyway on the same hardware >>is quite a possible conclusion... If good moves would anyway be chosen by R9, >>why should R10 change them? :-) > >If good moves are chosen by R9 why should I buy R10? ;-) Good moves chosen _this time_ :-) > (OK, I want Rebel to >become Windows-program) :-) > >>I will be buying my R10. :-) > >I am not sure. Kind regards fca >Ed, what about updates, will the update R10/DOS->R10/WIN be free? >If not, how much? If not, how much R9->R10/WIN?
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.