Author: Mark Young
Date: 16:43:15 08/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2004 at 19:22:16, James T. Walker wrote: >On August 30, 2004 at 16:39:22, Mark Young wrote: > >>On August 30, 2004 at 15:33:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On August 30, 2004 at 14:51:01, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On August 30, 2004 at 13:51:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 30, 2004 at 12:24:54, Volker Böhm wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On August 30, 2004 at 10:02:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On August 30, 2004 at 08:30:34, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On August 30, 2004 at 08:12:52, Jouni Uski wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Eine FPGA-Karte untersucht momentan ca. 3 Millionen Positionen/Sekunde. 16 >>>>>>>>>Karten machen daher theoretisch 48 MPos/sec. (Donninger) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Jouni >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If Hydra made 48 Mpos/sec this again proves (in comparison >>>>>>>> with the 2 Mpos/sec on Quad-Opteron server with 4 CPU's of >>>>>>>> Shredder) that the number of pos/sec can't be taken as a >>>>>>>> reliable value for the goodness of a chess program. It's >>>>>>>> of course simply impossible to compare apples and organes. >>>>>>>> Kurt [http://www.utzingerk.com] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Don't forget that Hydra ripped Shredder's head off. So the NPS _might_ be >>>>>>>significant here... >>>>>> >>>>>>Didn´t I´ve heard you saying that 10 games are not enough to draw a >>>>>>statistically significant conclusion on the playing strength? >>>>>> >>>>>>Greetings Volker >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>With two _close_ opponents, correct. But if one is seriously stronger, as hydra >>>>>appeared to be, 10 games is plenty. >>>> >>>>We do not know if hydra is seriously stronger. >>> >>>We have a pretty good clue that it is. It is over 10x faster, potentially, than >>>other programs. >>> >>>1. I first assume that the programmer / designer is no dummy. >>> >>>2. all else being "equal" 10x faster is a _serious_ advantage. >>> >>>3. the above two points translate into a signficant strength advantage. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>You cannot start by assuming that hydra is significantly stronger when this is >>>>the question. >>> >>>With evidence, you can. IE I can certainly assume that Crafty on an 8-way >>>opteron is significantly stronger than Crafty on my dual xeon. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>If you see 10-0 you can say based on the result that Hydra is significantly >>>>stronger but when you see 5.5-2.5 you cannot claim it based on the result and >>>>you only can say that you do not know if it is significantly stronger based on >>>>the result. >>>> >>> >>> >>>If you only look at the results, maybe or maybe not. But I watched many of the >>>games with Crafty analyzing. That tells you even more. >> >>Common sense should tell us that Hydra is stronger. It should have a big >>hardware advantage. I think this is your point, and I agree. But I still need >>more data to be sure. Right now there is only a 1 in 6 chance that Hydra is the >>stronger program based on the games alone. > >*************** >Where do you get a 1 in 6 chance that Hydra is stronger??? If that's true then >what are the odds that Shredder is stronger?? Maybe 5 in 6 ??? >**************** > You must understand.... The odds are so low because not many games were played. Now if Hydra would have won 8-0 or 7-1 then you have a much higher certainty. A 8-0 score shows (100>) to 1 against sherdder being stronger. A score of 7-1 would have a 20 to 1 against Shredder being stronger. Now when you have a match score of 5.5 - 2.5. It tells you almost nothing. It is close to being 50 - 50 odds or to be exact 65 to 45 that Hydra is stronger. >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>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.