hgm wrote:Indeed, but at sourcecode level. So Elo/character.duncan wrote:using the metric elo/byte ?
Elo/sourcecode meter
Moderators: bob, hgm, Harvey Williamson
Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
Elo/sourcecode meter
Eugene Kotlov
Hedgehog 2.0 64bit coming soon...
Hedgehog 2.0 64bit coming soon...
Re: Elo/sourcecode meter
Your metric is not elo/byte but playing strength/byte
elo is not proportional to playing strength.
stockfish source 57447
stockfish elo 3561
stockfish number 3561/57447
Micromax source 3730
Micromax elo 1947
Micromax number 1947/3730
elo is not proportional to playing strength.
stockfish source 57447
stockfish elo 3561
stockfish number 3561/57447
Micromax source 3730
Micromax elo 1947
Micromax number 1947/3730
Re: Elo/sourcecode meter
Seriously are you that slow?Uri Blass wrote:Your metric is not elo/byte but playing strength/byte
elo is not proportional to playing strength.
stockfish source 57447
stockfish elo 3561
stockfish number 3561/57447
Micromax source 3730
Micromax elo 1947
Micromax number 1947/3730
Elo is an logaritmic (logistic actually) relative metric of playing strength. You can't just make simple proportion to perform calculation. HGM ofc knows this but is just arrogant and his keyboard is often faster than his brain.
You on the other hand, I really don't get.
OP is absolutely correct in his calculation.
Re: Elo/sourcecode meter
The metric that HGM used is elo/byteMilos wrote:Seriously are you that slow?Uri Blass wrote:Your metric is not elo/byte but playing strength/byte
elo is not proportional to playing strength.
stockfish source 57447
stockfish elo 3561
stockfish number 3561/57447
Micromax source 3730
Micromax elo 1947
Micromax number 1947/3730
Elo is an logaritmic (logistic actually) relative metric of playing strength. You can't just make simple proportion to perform calculation. HGM ofc knows this but is just arrogant and his keyboard is often faster than his brain.
You on the other hand, I really don't get.
OP is absolutely correct in his calculation.
It is possible to compare engines using this metric and I do not see what is the problem.
Nobody claim that elo is proportional to playing strength and I can make a simple proportion to calculate the metric that HGM is using.
You can claim that it is not important to have the best number for elo/byte
and it is more important to have the best number in different metric
but it does not contradict the fact that micromax is better than stockfish in this comparison.
Of course with different comparison stockfish is better.
Re: Elo/sourcecode meter
You are just hopeless. You clearly cannot comprehend that mathematical operator used for comparison depends on the type of quantity you are trying to compare. Therefore Elo/byte is not Elo divided with byte of size and that simple division makes absolutely no sense. Just a simple illustration, maybe you can get that one, if not I give up. Because Elo is a relative metric reference engine Elo doesn't matter so you can say Micromax is 0 Elo, or if you wish 0.00000001 Elo and SF is 1614 Elo. Now try to use your proportion and see how much stronger Micromax is in Elo/byte .Uri Blass wrote:The metric that HGM used is elo/byteMilos wrote:Seriously are you that slow?Uri Blass wrote:Your metric is not elo/byte but playing strength/byte
elo is not proportional to playing strength.
stockfish source 57447
stockfish elo 3561
stockfish number 3561/57447
Micromax source 3730
Micromax elo 1947
Micromax number 1947/3730
Elo is an logaritmic (logistic actually) relative metric of playing strength. You can't just make simple proportion to perform calculation. HGM ofc knows this but is just arrogant and his keyboard is often faster than his brain.
You on the other hand, I really don't get.
OP is absolutely correct in his calculation.
It is possible to compare engines using this metric and I do not see what is the problem.
Nobody claim that elo is proportional to playing strength and I can make a simple proportion to calculate the metric that HGM is using.
You can claim that it is not important to have the best number for elo/byte
and it is more important to have the best number in different metric
but it does not contradict the fact that micromax is better than stockfish in this comparison.
Of course with different comparison stockfish is better.
 hgm
 Posts: 23883
 Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:06 am
 Location: Amsterdam
 Full name: H G Muller
 Contact:
Re: Elo/sourcecode meter
The mentioned sizes do not appear to be correct correct; microMax is just under 2K, not counting unnecessary white space and comments. This is even a more generous counting rule than for the Obfuscated CCode Contest, where they also do not count semicolons.
But apart from that, I don't see the point. You use the metric exp(Elo)/size, and you find Stockfish is better. You could also have used Elo/exp(size). This would highly amplify microMax' advantage, compared to Elo/size.
By picking the metric you can make the outcome anything you like. Which was exactly my point, and the reason I mentioned it in the other thread.
Actually the Elo/size measure is very generous as well: the Elo scale has the natural zero point of the random mover. And we now know that this does not ly near 0 Elo, but rather near 3000 (from the AlphaZero experiment). So if you correct for that and use 'absolute Elo', microMax is ~5000, and Stockfish ~6300, so only 1.26 times as strong. Defining microMax as 0 Elo makes just as much sense as defining the freezing point of ice as temperature zero.
But apart from that, I don't see the point. You use the metric exp(Elo)/size, and you find Stockfish is better. You could also have used Elo/exp(size). This would highly amplify microMax' advantage, compared to Elo/size.
By picking the metric you can make the outcome anything you like. Which was exactly my point, and the reason I mentioned it in the other thread.
Actually the Elo/size measure is very generous as well: the Elo scale has the natural zero point of the random mover. And we now know that this does not ly near 0 Elo, but rather near 3000 (from the AlphaZero experiment). So if you correct for that and use 'absolute Elo', microMax is ~5000, and Stockfish ~6300, so only 1.26 times as strong. Defining microMax as 0 Elo makes just as much sense as defining the freezing point of ice as temperature zero.
Re: Elo/sourcecode meter
I have no problem to understand mathematics and I understand what you say.Milos wrote:You are just hopeless. You clearly cannot comprehend that mathematical operator used for comparison depends on the type of quantity you are trying to compare. Therefore Elo/byte is not Elo divided with byte of size and that simple division makes absolutely no sense. Just a simple illustration, maybe you can get that one, if not I give up. Because Elo is a relative metric reference engine Elo doesn't matter so you can say Micromax is 0 Elo, or if you wish 0.00000001 Elo and SF is 1614 Elo. Now try to use your proportion and see how much stronger Micromax is in Elo/byte .Uri Blass wrote:The metric that HGM used is elo/byteMilos wrote:Seriously are you that slow?Uri Blass wrote:Your metric is not elo/byte but playing strength/byte
elo is not proportional to playing strength.
stockfish source 57447
stockfish elo 3561
stockfish number 3561/57447
Micromax source 3730
Micromax elo 1947
Micromax number 1947/3730
Elo is an logaritmic (logistic actually) relative metric of playing strength. You can't just make simple proportion to perform calculation. HGM ofc knows this but is just arrogant and his keyboard is often faster than his brain.
You on the other hand, I really don't get.
OP is absolutely correct in his calculation.
It is possible to compare engines using this metric and I do not see what is the problem.
Nobody claim that elo is proportional to playing strength and I can make a simple proportion to calculate the metric that HGM is using.
You can claim that it is not important to have the best number for elo/byte
and it is more important to have the best number in different metric
but it does not contradict the fact that micromax is better than stockfish in this comparison.
Of course with different comparison stockfish is better.
Stockfish is clearly relatively stronger with some calculation and Micromax is relatively stronger with a different calculation.
It is not that the calculation that Stockfish is stronger is less impotant but that calculation is not elo/sourcecode metric that is the subject of the thread(when elo is elo in the same way that we normally calculate it in rating lists and not something near 0 for micromax that I agree can also be elo but not what I mean when I talk about elo).
Re: Elo/sourcecode meter
HGM knows that I'm right ))
Eugene Kotlov
Hedgehog 2.0 64bit coming soon...
Hedgehog 2.0 64bit coming soon...

 Posts: 62
 Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 3:59 pm
Re: Elo/sourcecode meter
Should probably slightly change the original calculation. It's taking the expected score of Engine A vs Engine B, then doing 1/expected score to show much better Engine B is.
When Engine A and Engine B have the same rating, that would output that each engine is twice as good as the other
If you measure strength this way, you would want to do (1E_micromax)/E_micromax.
It wouldn't change the result much here, of course, but as long as we're all being picky
When Engine A and Engine B have the same rating, that would output that each engine is twice as good as the other
If you measure strength this way, you would want to do (1E_micromax)/E_micromax.
It wouldn't change the result much here, of course, but as long as we're all being picky
Re: Elo/sourcecode meter
Yes, my fault.MonteCarlo wrote:Should probably slightly change the original calculation. It's taking the expected score of Engine A vs Engine B, then doing 1/expected score to show much better Engine B is.
When Engine A and Engine B have the same rating, that would output that each engine is twice as good as the other
If you measure strength this way, you would want to do (1E_micromax)/E_micromax.
It wouldn't change the result much here, of course, but as long as we're all being picky
Thx!
Eugene Kotlov
Hedgehog 2.0 64bit coming soon...
Hedgehog 2.0 64bit coming soon...