what is going on here?
1) It is more difficult to make the same Elo improvement at a higher level, and
2) It is more difficult to make the same Elo improvement when you are already at the highest level.
For these reasons, the Elo improvement rate is unlikely to provide any indication of future outcomes. Note that the simplest way for Glauring/Stockfish to improve its growth rate would have been to start off weaker than they did, and this would not be indicative of better future performance.
> It is more difficult to make the same Elo improvement when you are already at the highest level.
Rybka 2.3.2a was at the highest level, yet Rybka 3 had a higher elo jump than the rest of the competition. I still agree with you that past results can't tell anything about the future.
A) Improve the chess engine's performance from 2200 to 2300, or
B) Improve the chess engine's performance from 3200 to 3300?
If you agree that the answer is B, I rest my case.
And Vas might as well have added extra 100 elo to his 3229 engine, again with ease, but decided to release only 60 elo of the improvement, that turned out to only be 30 for unknown reasons.
I think the change from Fritz 11 to Fritz 12 is a very poor counter example because Chessbase hasn't seemed serious about Fritz since the days of DF8 (which wasn't much better than DF7).
> it appears to me to have a lot of R3 or whatever in it.
Like what? I've relied on it on several of my correspondence games (a batch of won games after Stockfish 1.5 was released and before Rybka 4 was released), there hasn't been a single thing that has made me suspicious, they're worlds apart in similarity.
> I suspect some thing wrong with your setup
What are you talking about? You sent your comment to me so- are you trying to tell me that (90 m 30 s)/40+(15m +30s) will not get you accurate results? 120 Minutes For The First 40 Moves 60 Minutes For The Next 20 Moves 15 Minutes For The Rest- is probably going to get you similar results. If I am reading his data correctly his results aren't that much different than what I came up with.
R4 is still top fish in this cyber sea- but not by much. Once or two more updates of Stockfish, might clinch it.
HOWEVER- Vas' update, and if I read him right, tweaks-"might" put R4 in an incontestable position for yet a while longer.
So far results are very close:
+8 =9 -11
But keep in mind that this is absolutely not significant in the statistics! For exapmle results: 2 wins or less in 10 games (0,054) is about the SAME probability as getting 41 wins or less in 100 games (0,044). The most important thing is statistical significance, not actual number of games. Eg. results: 10wins 0losses is almost same as 34wins 66losses when we expect both to be about the same (easily checked by excel).
I run matches on my 1,6Ghz computer with tablebases 4 pieces, random book 3 ply, learning off and various time limits: 1min, 1min+1s, 2min, 2min+2s, 4min, 5min, 5min+5s, 10min .... or anything I make up.
So far it seems there may be a slight edge to Rybka but not much.
R4 vs Stckf 1.8
+11 =12 -14
Very interesting, it seems that engines are almost the same strength.
I am looking for tomorrow morning results....
> Very interesting, it seems that engines are almost the same strength.
Not quite! But close. Rybka still has the edge- but that might certainly end with the next Stockfish update. However, like I say-it also depends on what Vas does with his bug fix and if he adds a few tweaks.
> She refuses to work for you because you don't spell her name right
The likelyhood for "R4 gets 1 point or less in 6 games" is less than 2% and quickly we could say "Uh, something strange happend!"
But I assume, such very, very short Testrows are done very often.
And maybe each 60th Testrow may show this result.
By the way: maybe each 60th Testrow will show R4 wit 5.5 or 6 points!
And this is posted then in Forums and is discussed as a strange event.
But statistics say: this should appear. Otherwise it would be strange.
Stockfish 1.8 is no doubt an improvement over 1.7.1, but it's a small improvement, just like R4 wasn't that huge an improvement over R3.
Like i said, you can test it yourself with my settings (Queen cp 7 for both black and white, rook endgame scaling 75). It's about 10-12 ELO stronger than the default Rybka 4 settings.
AND it is continuously being updated (for FREE).
i have created a new system of play that is simple yet effective against engines
i think the big disappointment of rybka 4 should be responded to by not purchasing unless major improvements are made (or else we can keep expecting shitty results in r5 and r6 if we keep buying them when they are only a bit stronger!!!)
im going to be coming in to some major cash soon and i will give people a system that will beat rybka, or, get programmers to show the true elos- it will be easy for me to improve over many programmers as my elo is 2800, even being so i am not interested in playing professionally-
> what is the cloud?
New Vas's model: Instead of buying Rybka, you rent her, and the hardware she runs at, online.
>i will give people a system that will beat rybka, or, get programmers to show the true elos- it will be easy for me to improve over many programmers as my elo is 2800, even being so i am not interested in playing professionally
???? Can you clarify what you mean by this? I do not understand at all :/
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill