Author: Harald Faber
Date: 22:35:27 08/09/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 09, 1998 at 23:52:04, fca wrote: >>>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%) Is this higher mathematics? >:-> >>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! You should sell your babelfish. :-) Translated word by word may be clearer in this case and it means you are counting hmmm beans? What is Erbse? Bean is Bohne... OK, we are getting off-topic... >>>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! :-) MAYBE, only MAYBE R9 would play different. But I think 3min/move is closest tc possible for we don't have Anands thinking time. >>>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. :-) Yes it is, 4 different moves. It is OK although I don't knoiw if these are better. :-) >>>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. Ah, I looked at his development site. >My excellent point 6 has been snipped!! Can't remember. :-) >>>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_ :-) And often before! Ed, what about updates, will the update R10/DOS->R10/WIN be free? If not, how much? If not, how much R9->R10/WIN? BTW does R10 now have the option to show which move out of how many possible moves Rebel is searching? Last versions it was shown when Rebel had moved, it is also interesting during the search.
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.