Author: Günther Simon
Date: 13:36:54 01/20/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2006 at 16:23:38, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On January 20, 2006 at 14:22:06, Günther Simon wrote: > >>On January 20, 2006 at 13:56:49, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On January 20, 2006 at 13:49:10, Günther Simon wrote: >>> >>>>On January 20, 2006 at 13:41:20, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 20, 2006 at 11:51:48, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 20, 2006 at 05:28:47, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On January 20, 2006 at 04:58:11, enrico carrisco wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On January 20, 2006 at 03:14:09, Mike Byrne wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>http://www.chessolympiad-torino2006.org/eng/index.php?cav=1&dettaglio=309 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>good stuff... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Yea -- he even cited the "Anti-computer chess expert" Pablo Ignacio Restrepo. >>>>>>>>What more would we need? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>-elc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, this, and then also the point that not automatically everything which is >>>>>>>quoted by a GM, here GM Golubev, is similar to Newton's Gravitation Law Paper or >>>>>>>Einstein's paper on Relativity. It's a bogus more or less. I want to add a >>>>>>>single item so that my opinion doesnt look like a cheap arbitrariness. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The CEGT test guys are mentioned (I think some 15 persons) and it sounds as if >>>>>>>they were a sort of institution for certain questions in CC. Comparable to what >>>>>>>we meant when we spoke of "the new SSDF list" in the 90's. The problem begins if >>>>>>>I question that Rybka is already proven the strongest engine today. Then people >>>>>>>tell me to look at CEGT where that has been proven... This was a few days ago >>>>>>>here in CCC. I must object to such sort of hybris. The truth is that we dont >>>>>>>have statistical methods for making such claims. Even after 700 or maybe over >>>>>>>1000 games the significance is not so sure and if you look at the +/- boundaries >>>>>>>of the so called Elo results then you still have overlappings and you cant say >>>>>>>that Rybka is the clear first. - Nothing against the testers of CEGT. The >>>>>>>presentation of the results is nice. The games download is also well organised. >>>>>>>But all that can't hide the fact that we have certain statistical requirements >>>>>>>which must be respected if one wanted to make clear statements. We are all too >>>>>>>human. In a world of huge uncertainties and big problems overall, we feel the >>>>>>>need to do something for our wellness in such a hobby. Where if not there could >>>>>>>we find our peace of mind? We can test. We can create a whole network of >>>>>>>testers. But if we then want to make clear statements, alas, we are all standing >>>>>>>under the steel hard laws of stats. And basically we cant get what we want to >>>>>>>have. We are bound to believe in our private preferences. We can also assume >>>>>>>that actually, for a short time, Rybka is "certainly" looking like a very strong >>>>>>>engine. But everything above that would be bogus. We should all keep that in >>>>>>>mind. The development in CC is always moving. THere is no such thing as the best >>>>>>>alltime engine for the next 10 years. If I would get the newest super computers >>>>>>>of the US military, it could well be that I become the next World Champion with >>>>>>>Gullydeckel, to give an absurd example, or with my personal shooting star The >>>>>>>Roaring Thunder which was developed in my kitchen for the next WCCC in Torino... >>>>>>>I degress a little bit. >>>>>> >>>>>>Here are the CEGT single processor results >>>>>> >>>>>>I ignore single processor result >>>>> >>>>>It striked me with a sort of importunateness when I read today the campaign by >>>>>Simon/Pittlik? and Lagershausen and when I read your lecture here, dear Uri, I'm >>>>>quite sure that it's impossible to tell people the complex truth, if they are >>>>>used to believe in simple truths. I have learned long enough how careful one >>>>>should be in statistics. Honestly Uri, what you are doing here is unallowed. You >>>>>cant take a list with results and then simply remove certain entries and THEN >>>>>compare with their results included. That is your first crass mistake. Of course >>>>>also I do know that you cant simply compare 1-processor with 2-processor progs. >>>>>And that wasnt at all what I was trying to do. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>You can see that single processor programs have less than 2800 when even the 32 >>>>>>bit version of rybka has bigger rating than 2815 when the top 64 bit version >>>>>>even has more than 2850. >>>>>> >>>>>>No over lapping >>>>>> >>>>>>1 Rybka 1.01 Beta 9 64-bit opt 2921 73 68 71 80.3 % 2677 33.8 % >>>>>>2 Rybka 1.0 Beta 64-bit 2859 21 21 765 68.4 % 2725 32.7 % >>>>>>4 Rybka 1.0 Beta 32-bit 2825 10 10 3575 68.9 % 2687 31.0 % >>>>>>6 Fruit 2.2.1 2786 8 8 5035 66.0 % 2671 33.1 % >>>>>>7 Fritz 9 2782 11 11 2724 62.8 % 2691 30.2 % >>>>>>9 TogaII 1.1a 2772 14 14 1560 60.3 % 2699 36.3 % >>>>>>10 Hiarcs 10 Hypermodern 2771 22 22 644 53.3 % 2749 35.7 % >>>>>> >>>>>>The only entry of CEGT that in theory can have more than 2800 on one cpu is deep >>>>>>fritz8 but deep fritz8 2 cpu has less than 2800 and it is illogical to expect >>>>>>deep fritz8 on one cpu more than it >>>>>> >>>>>>8 Deep Fritz 8 2CPU 512MB 2772 14 14 >>>>>>15 Deep Fritz 8 1CPU 2754 107 104 >>>>>> >>>>>>The fact that in part of the other lists rybka is number 1 without an advantage >>>>>>that is significant enough probably also increase the certainty that rybka is >>>>>>the best engine because the probability of something that is not the best to get >>>>>>first place in every serious list is very small. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Let's come here to the second crass mistake in your arguments. You see the >>>>>result of first place for Rybka like I do that and you conclude that this must >>>>>have a proof signal as such. That is the mistake already. Because you conclude >>>>>that place one means best strength as such. NB that with stats you measure and >>>>>then you claim that your measurement has a validity. Because you kept everything >>>>>of importance under control. I simply object that this is wrong for the actual >>>>>situation because - as I have already debated with Bob Hyatt - Rybka is in the >>>>>initiative actually while all others must react now or tomorrow. But what the >>>>>results show is the improments of Rybka against unchanged older progs. And I >>>>>claim, without great risks, that any strong program will get in advantage, if >>>>>the others couldnt react yet. >>>> >>>>Rating lists don't show ratings of the future versions. I doubt Bob discussed >>>>astrology with you. The thread is about today not about future strength, >>>>no idea why you changed the topic. Ah wait I know why you changed it ;) >>>> >>>>Guenther >>> >>> >>>Just relax please. I dont speak of the future. I speak of the factor you didnt >>>reflect and couldnt control with the actual testing. Never heard about the >>>existing advantage of a new entry? This is not about rocket science, you could >>>well follow the debate if you could forget for a moment that you wanted to flame >>>me... just give truth a chance. I'm wrong often enough, then you can jump on me, >>>but this here is so trivial that you lose the debate big time. >> >>Your little earth hole gets smaller and smaller - big time ;-) >>Computerchess rating lists also don't measure 'new entry psychology'. >>Programs don't care for your psychology... >>Every new entry would have been number 1, if it had any significant >>influence, which is wrong, no CCC science needed. >>Have fun to work out a 'new entry' formula together with your >>rating program. > > >I have a little question for your email address: are you volker pittlik? Because >I never before talked to a Günter Simon. :) May be you as a computer/internet illiterate are not able to decide between web hosting addresses and e-mail addresses? My name is Günther Simon - I forgive you omitting that silent 'h' - and my e-mail is g.simon.rgbg*AT*t-online.de, which is a real commercial providers address. Any further questions? ;) If you wouldn't be as illiterate you could have done a simple google search for my name + chess XOR computer chess, or anything similar. It would have also helped to look up a certain other specific high level computer chess forum... G.S.
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.