Author: Albert Silver
Date: 08:04:26 01/15/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 2006 at 10:57:25, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>On January 15, 2006 at 10:23:33, Albert Silver wrote:
>
>>On January 15, 2006 at 10:08:23, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>
>>>On January 15, 2006 at 09:38:02, Albert Silver wrote:
>>>
>>>>On January 15, 2006 at 09:22:48, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On January 15, 2006 at 08:43:13, Albert Silver wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On January 15, 2006 at 02:07:06, Marc Lacrosse wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Lacrosse's analysis showed above all that in the 87 positions he tested, that
>>>>>>>>Shredder 9 and Rybka scored 57% given 10 seconds, and Fruit and Toga and company
>>>>>>>>are much weaker with so little time, and thus much weaker in blitz.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Albert
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Just a little point, Albert.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What my little experience shows is not an argument for telling that engine A is
>>>>>>>better or worse than engine B at faster or slower time control.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What I precisely did is the following :
>>>>>>>let say :
>>>>>>>- engine A solves "x" positions in 180 seconds and
>>>>>>>- engine B solves "y" positions in 18o seconds.
>>>>>>>I recorded:
>>>>>>>- what percentage of "x" engine A had already solved after 10 seconds
>>>>>>>- what percentage of "y" engine B had already solved after 10 seconds
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So each engine is compared at 10 seconds with the number of positions that it
>>>>>>>will solve _itself_ at 180 seconds
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So when I record that Rybka has a 57% score and Fruit a 39%, this does _not_ say
>>>>>>>that Rybka is "stronger" or "weaker" than Fruit, and we could have a much weaker
>>>>>>>1800 elo engine getting a 80% (or a 15%) score in the same test.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What the little test tends to show is just that rybka has already shown 57% of
>>>>>>>its own analysis capacity at 10 seconds whereas Fruit has a larger margin of
>>>>>>>improvement (compared with itself) when given a larger time control.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Actually, it doesn't even show what you suggest, that Rybka has already shown
>>>>>>57% of it's capacity in 10 seconds, and as a consequence I'm afraid your
>>>>>>conclusions are incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The positions you tested with have definite solutions I presume, thus once that
>>>>>>solution is reached there is no room for improvement. How can you claim that
>>>>>>Rybka cannot improve its analysis when the positions you gave it cannot be
>>>>>>improved upon after the solutions are found?
>>>>>
>>>>>Please read again: "larger margin". Does it mean "cannot improve"?
>>>>
>>>>It can't have a 'larger' margin of improvement if it is being compared to
>>>>something with no possible margin.
>>>
>>>This is another claim but of course you cant say anything at all if the problems
>>>are too easy to solve.
>>
>>It makes no difference whatsoever.
>>
>>>- Let me repeat what i wrote to Marc. His little
>>>experiment and discussion proves that he has done something valuable.
>>
>>
>>Ok, if the value of the experiment is in the debates that it created, then fine.
>>But the numbers and results have no value whatsoever if one wants to draw any
>>conclusions from them.
>>
>
>No way. You cant say that. This WHATSOEVER is wrong and destructive towards
>Marc.
Not only can I say it, I even showed why. What does Marc have to do with this?
I'm talking about the data and the inferences drawn.
Albert
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.