| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jesús Muñoz
Joined: 13 Jul 2011
Posts: 707
Location: Madrid, Spain.
|
 Post subject: Perft(14) estimate after averaging 54 MC perft samples. Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:27 pm |
  |
|
Hello:
I have been running other 27 MonteCarlo Perft(14) samples and this is what I get:
| Code: |
perftmc 14 (GNU 5.07.173b w32):
28) m=6.188011e+019 sd=9.946225e+015 ci(99%)=[6.185449e+019,6.190573e+019] n=501279154 sdn=2.226887e+020 t=1794.44s
29) m=6.187823e+019 sd=1.083952e+016 ci(99%)=[6.185030e+019,6.190615e+019] n=501280058 sdn=2.426891e+020 t=1793.56s
30) m=6.190087e+019 sd=1.062835e+016 ci(99%)=[6.187350e+019,6.192825e+019] n=501279242 sdn=2.379609e+020 t=1794.03s
31) m=6.186841e+019 sd=1.001161e+016 ci(99%)=[6.184262e+019,6.189420e+019] n=501282355 sdn=2.241533e+020 t=1803.33s
32) m=6.186260e+019 sd=1.058766e+016 ci(99%)=[6.183533e+019,6.188988e+019] n=501278370 sdn=2.370498e+020 t=1802.84s
33) m=6.187918e+019 sd=1.047857e+016 ci(99%)=[6.185219e+019,6.190617e+019] n=501278678 sdn=2.346074e+020 t=1808.39s
34) m=6.187713e+019 sd=1.089137e+016 ci(99%)=[6.184907e+019,6.190518e+019] n=501279776 sdn=2.438498e+020 t=1794.05s
35) m=6.188263e+019 sd=1.121174e+016 ci(99%)=[6.185375e+019,6.191151e+019] n=501280644 sdn=2.510231e+020 t=1794.03s
36) m=6.187222e+019 sd=1.063405e+016 ci(99%)=[6.184483e+019,6.189962e+019] n=501279318 sdn=2.380886e+020 t=1797.12s
37) m=6.187374e+019 sd=1.057575e+016 ci(99%)=[6.184650e+019,6.190099e+019] n=501279868 sdn=2.367833e+020 t=1794.12s
38) m=6.186556e+019 sd=9.809724e+015 ci(99%)=[6.184029e+019,6.189083e+019] n=501280175 sdn=2.196327e+020 t=1796.73s
39) m=6.187162e+019 sd=1.029827e+016 ci(99%)=[6.184510e+019,6.189815e+019] n=501277766 sdn=2.305705e+020 t=1793.00s
40) m=6.188765e+019 sd=1.113190e+016 ci(99%)=[6.185898e+019,6.191633e+019] n=501281045 sdn=2.492355e+020 t=1813.12s
41) m=6.187547e+019 sd=1.037987e+016 ci(99%)=[6.184874e+019,6.190221e+019] n=501280995 sdn=2.323981e+020 t=1814.27s
42) m=6.189318e+019 sd=1.031386e+016 ci(99%)=[6.186661e+019,6.191975e+019] n=501279435 sdn=2.309197e+020 t=1829.69s
43) m=6.188305e+019 sd=1.050592e+016 ci(99%)=[6.185598e+019,6.191011e+019] n=501279973 sdn=2.352199e+020 t=1787.39s
44) m=6.185973e+019 sd=9.954686e+015 ci(99%)=[6.183408e+019,6.188537e+019] n=501281580 sdn=2.228786e+020 t=1789.70s
45) m=6.185511e+019 sd=1.036460e+016 ci(99%)=[6.182841e+019,6.188181e+019] n=501277568 sdn=2.320555e+020 t=1789.03s
46) m=6.188931e+019 sd=1.069488e+016 ci(99%)=[6.186176e+019,6.191686e+019] n=501280008 sdn=2.394508e+020 t=1801.38s
47) m=6.188533e+019 sd=1.025258e+016 ci(99%)=[6.185892e+019,6.191174e+019] n=501279859 sdn=2.295478e+020 t=1796.28s
48) m=6.188584e+019 sd=1.024875e+016 ci(99%)=[6.185944e+019,6.191225e+019] n=501280494 sdn=2.294622e+020 t=1796.48s
49) m=6.187672e+019 sd=1.142710e+016 ci(99%)=[6.184729e+019,6.190616e+019] n=501278206 sdn=2.558442e+020 t=1806.58s
50) m=6.187417e+019 sd=1.029176e+016 ci(99%)=[6.184766e+019,6.190068e+019] n=501280296 sdn=2.304251e+020 t=1802.50s
51) m=6.187121e+019 sd=1.047623e+016 ci(99%)=[6.184422e+019,6.189819e+019] n=501280150 sdn=2.345552e+020 t=1810.09s
52) m=6.188088e+019 sd=1.113788e+016 ci(99%)=[6.185219e+019,6.190957e+019] n=501279478 sdn=2.493689e+020 t=1804.67s
53) m=6.189411e+019 sd=1.098293e+016 ci(99%)=[6.186581e+019,6.192240e+019] n=501278721 sdn=2.458996e+020 t=1803.09s
54) m=6.188640e+019 sd=1.065530e+016 ci(99%)=[6.185896e+019,6.191385e+019] n=501280051 sdn=2.385646e+020 t=1804.02s |
| Code: |
Averages after N = 54 MonteCarlo perft samples:
<m> ~ 61,881,120,367,616,500,000
<sd> ~ 10,495,306,430,406,300
<m>/<sd> ~ 5896.076
<n> ~ 501,279,504.33 |
I have included <n> (the average number of nodes per sample) which should be around 5.0128e+8 nodes. I am not an expert, but these results do not seem unreasonable.
I will be very busy for running more samples until mid February, so I postpone this Perft(14) estimate experiment for a while. I hope to exceed 100 samples, trying to get more accurate results.
Regards from Spain.
Ajedrecista.
_________________
Six Fortran 95 tools.
Chess will never be solved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
| Subject |
Author |
Date/Time |
 Doubt: perft estimate averaging N MonteCarlo samples. |
Jesús Muñoz |
Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:27 pm |
| Re: Doubt: perft estimate averaging N MonteCarlo samples. |
Daniel Shawul |
Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:31 pm |
| Averages with 27 MonteCarlo samples. |
Jesús Muñoz |
Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:35 pm |
| Perft(14) estimate after averaging 54 MC perft samples. |
Jesús Muñoz |
Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:27 pm |
| Some explanations. |
Jesús Muñoz |
Sun Jan 22, 2012 4:09 pm |
| Perft(14) estimate after averaging 96 MC perft samples. |
Jesús Muñoz |
Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:44 pm |
| Perft(14) estimate after averaging 120 MC perft samples. |
Jesús Muñoz |
Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:00 pm |
| Perft(14) estimate after averaging 174 MC perft samples. |
Jesús Muñoz |
Fri Mar 02, 2012 5:26 pm |
| Perft(14) estimate after averaging 222 MC perft samples. |
Jesús Muñoz |
Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:50 pm |
| Perft(14) estimate after averaging 270 MC perft samples. |
Jesús Muñoz |
Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:57 pm |
| Perft(14) estimate after averaging 315 MC perft samples. |
Jesús Muñoz |
Fri Mar 23, 2012 3:22 pm |
| Perft(14) estimate after averaging 387 MC perft samples. |
Jesús Muñoz |
Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:11 pm |
| Final Perft(14) estimate after averaging 400 MC samples. |
Jesús Muñoz |
Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:21 pm |
| Re: Final Perft(14) estimate after averaging 400 MC samples. |
Peter Österlund |
Tue Apr 10, 2012 9:24 pm |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
