Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: interesting idea (some food for thought)

Author: José Carlos

Date: 00:13:09 09/09/02

Go up one level in this thread


On September 08, 2002 at 22:24:06, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote:

>On September 08, 2002 at 21:17:47, José Carlos wrote:
>
>>On September 08, 2002 at 20:46:44, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote:
>>
>>>On September 07, 2002 at 11:13:20, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Jose made a really good point about observed data vs measured data.  After
>>>>thinking about it for a bit, I decided that it is a point strong enough to
>>>>change the way we think about "measured" and "observed".
>>>>
>>>>Some examples:
>>>>
>>>>speed.  Impossible to measure.
>>>>
>>>>For example, your automobile (newer vehicles) compute speed by counting the
>>>>revolutions of the tailshaft (output) of the transmission, then factoring in
>>>>the rear-end ratio and the circumference of the rear wheels.  It _computes_
>>>>the speed from that.
>>>>
>>>>A radar measures the frequency change in a radio signal as it bounces off
>>>>a moving target and _computes_ the speed based on the frequency change.
>>>>
>>>>A GPS observes to "positions" in terms of lattitude and longitude, uses some
>>>>geometry to compute the distance between them, and uses a clock to measure the
>>>>time to cover that distance, and displays speed.
>>>>
>>>>So Speed can't be measured directly, it has to be computed.  And this isn't a
>>>>surprise since speed is defined as distance over time.
>>>>
>>>>Brightness.  (of a light, not a person.  :)  )
>>>>
>>>>This is a direct measure of an electrical signal produced by some sort of
>>>>device (photo-resistor, photo-cell, optical transistor, etc) and then that
>>>>voltage is used to compute a brightness level in Lumens...
>>>>
>>>>Loudness (sound).
>>>>
>>>>Ditto.
>>>>
>>>>NPS.
>>>>
>>>>nodes searched divided by time in seconds.  Computed.
>>>>
>>>>Speedup
>>>>
>>>>one-processor time divided by the N-processor time.  Computed
>>>>
>>>>We really don't have a lot of "observed" data nowadays.   Some, yes.  Where
>>>>were you at 8pm last night.  But more is computed...
>>>>
>>>>Which means if we start to define observed vs computed, we don't end up with
>>>>very much in the "observed" column.
>>>>
>>>>In a chess program I can count nodes and "compute" time (end-time minus
>>>>start-time) and then compute a nps value.  I can measure run-time and compute
>>>>speed-up.  But I can't directly measure speed at all.
>>>
>>>Not really, NPS is a direct measure. You do not measure nodes, you "report"
>>>them. In other words, there is no error in the measure of nodes.
>>
>>  Not quite correct, IMO. Say you start iteration 11. You generate moves at the
>>root, then pick the first one. Go along the PV and go back in the tree. Let's
>>say you're in ply 6. So plies 1-5 are PV moves and from 6 on you have searched a
>>subtree. You test time and find you ran out, so you decide to stop searching.
>>Did you completely analyze the root node? I don't think so. You analyzed it
>>partially. Same for node in the PV until ply 5.
>>  In parallel search there's something more. When you decide to stop the search
>>some processors might be generating moves, others might be evaluating, and so
>>on.
>>  So "nodes searched" are not a discrete meause, thus they must be measured, not
>>just reported.
>
>They (nodes) might not mean what you really wanted to mean, but you define them
>and count them. For instance, number of times search is called or number of
>times makemove is called, whatever. You measure how long does it take to do a
>certain number of those events. Once those events are counted, they have no
>statistical error. If they do not represent what you want is a total different
>issue.
>
>Regards,
>Miguel

  Of course. I can define anything to make my life easier, but I guess that's
not the point. You can define speed as a constant (distance from Madrid to
Buenos Aires) divided by the time I need to do the travel, but that's not the
definition of speed, just a particular case.
  Also in a chess game, you don't do a search until some node count (whatever
the definition is) is hit and then stop. Your search decides _when_ to stop
based on time. So your node count is not constant. We could argue whether it is
a discrete measure or not, but certainly it's not constant.

  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.