Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 06:15:13 01/15/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 2006 at 08:50:20, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 15, 2006 at 07:58:12, Marc Lacrosse wrote: > >>On January 15, 2006 at 04:56:15, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>> >>>Your experiment show nothing >>> >>Mmmm. >>I agree my method is not perfect but I think it is not without any value. >>> >>>My point is that you cannot compare number of solution in x seconds with number >>>of solutions in y seconds and get conclusions. >> >>Your counterexemple is OK but does not prove that this comparison has no sense >>in any other more usual cases. >> >>> >>>The only logical comparison is comaparison of time to solve x solutions and time >>>to solve y solutions and you did not do that comparison. >>> >>>Uri >> >>Why are you always so peremptory ? >>I do not see anything in your post supporting the fact that your recommended >>comparison should be the _only_ logical one. >> >>Moreover your clear-clut unproven affirmation is easy to refute. >> >>Just take this simple example : >>Two engines A and B >>100 positions to solve >>Please plot the following values : >> >>solved positions time A time B >> 0 00 00 >> 10 10 05 >> 20 21 13 >> 30 33 24 >> 40 46 38 >> 50 60 55 >> 60 75 75 >> 70 91 98 >> 80 108 124 >> 90 126 153 >> 100 145 185 >> >>If I take your criterion examining the time needed to solve 30 positions, engine >>B (24 sec) is a faster searcher than engine A (33sec). >>But If I take your criterion to see the time needed to solve 90 positions, >>engine A (126sec) is faster than B (153 sec). >>Where is the truth ? >>It completely depends on your arbitrary choice of the time at which you compare >>the engines. >> >>Moreover, you cannot compare engines whose strength is very different with a >>single set of testpositions using your methodology whereas you can do it with >>mine as each engine is compared to itself in mine. >> >> >>So I surely would not say that your ideas are false but I feel you could be more >>prudent when you affirm that yours are the one and only truth... >> >>Regards >> >>Marc > >Based on the data that you give in this post A probably improves more at long >time control. Would you try to explain this conclusion? I know it's false! > >Based on previous data that compare number of solutions in 10 seconds and in 180 >seconds I have no idea because I cannot divide the time that fruit need to solve >x solutions by the time that rybka needs to solve x solutions for different x. > >Note that I do not think that you can say which engine is better based on test >suite results(and it is possible that the engine that score more is not better) >and my opinion is that you have a better chance to get a reply to a question >like which engine improve more from more time. Of course that could only be possible with positions that are taken from World Champions! > >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.