Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:35:12 07/25/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 25, 2003 at 04:27:01, Stephen A. Boak wrote: >On July 25, 2003 at 04:17:13, Stephen A. Boak wrote: > >My last post was accidentally submitted before I finished editing it (sorry). >Below is a better (more complete & more completely edited) post. > > >>On July 25, 2003 at 03:22:25, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On July 25, 2003 at 01:58:41, Stephen A. Boak wrote: >>> >>>>Uri, >>>>Your postings in this thread are not understandable (to me), sorry. >>>> >>>>Please explain very carefully. Do not assume the reader knows what you are >>>>thinking, but be sure to explain very carefully everything of importance: >>>> >>>>1. The conditions of the hypothetical test (engines, time settings, etc); >>> >>>Only 2 modified Crafties. >>>2 accounts(if we want significant names) >>>Crafty0.1 >>>Crafty3 >>> >>>Crafty0.1 is modified to use always 0.1 seconds per move and not to ponder. >>>Crafty3 is modified to use always 3 seconds per move and not to ponder. >>> >>> >>>both have formula that let them to play only 5 3 time control or 15 9 time >>>control. >>> >>>Both do not limit opponents except maybe limitation of difference in rating of >>>not more than 300 elo. >>> >>>>2. The hypothethical results of the hypothetical test; >>> >>>Crafty0.1 >>>2300 blitz >>>2200 standard >>> >>>Crafty3 >>>2900 blitz >>>2500 standard >>> >>>>3. The conclusions you would draw from those hypothetical results of the >>>>hypothetical test. >>> >>>The difference in rating may be misleading >> >>1. Misleading for what purpose? For the purpose of estimate of the difference in strength between engines. >> >>If you erroneously try to read too much into a result, then you should *expect* >>to be misled. >> >>Assume your hypothetical test & hypothetical results are real: >>2A. What knowledge *can* properly (logically) be deduced from the data? >> It suggests but does not prove that the same difference in rating does not mean the same in blitz and in standard. >>2B. What knowledge cannot properly (logically) be deduced from from the data? >> >>2C. Does it matter (for your same purpose--see above) whether the resulting Elo >>values are based on 1 game, 10 games, 100 games, 1000 games, etc? If we have more games we can be more sure about the conclusions that are suggested. >> >> 1) How would this affect what: >> a. logically *can* and > b. logically *can not* > be deduced from the data? >> >>2D. Does it matter (for your same purpose--see above) whether the resulting Elo >>values are based on having played the *exact same opponents*? I am interested about the practical situation. If we play against the same opponents the practical situation does not hapen. >> >> and 600 elo in blitz may be >>>equivalent to 300 elo in standard. >> >>There is a problem with 'logical' deduction if there is no equivalency in >>reality. >> >3. What if *some* programs [randomly] have a greater gain in going from 0.1 sec >/ move to 3 sec per move, It is not important because I only use one program. It is possible to repeat the expeiment with other programs and if we get the same type of results then it is going to support my theory otherwise there is no evidence for the theory. > >but *some other* programs [randomly] have a loss in going from 0.1 sec / move to >3 sec / move? I suggest not to use a program that plays worse in 3 seconds per move. Almost every program plays better at 3 seconds per move. Uri
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.