Re: Human versus Machine
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:13 pm
Thanks Edsel!Edsel Apostol wrote:Just continue with your work Lyudmil. Never mind the trolls!
The problem is they think I am the troll.
The problem is they think I am the troll.
Page 5 of 17
The problem is they think I am the troll.
Re: Human versus Machine
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:15 pm
There is no way out: if you have put a lot of work into it, you should feel sad, otherwise you are an yoga.JJJ wrote:Yeah, you re too sensitive. Troll musn't make you feel sad.
Re: Part III
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:02 am
One thing I forgot to mention is games in all 3 parts have been played with ponder=on, so this somewhat decreases the time difference, but I guess, especially for closed positions, the effect would be rather small, as engines would be pondering mostly the wrong moves.
I have always wondered what the effect of ponder on game play is, I presume rather insignificant.
I have always wondered what the effect of ponder on game play is, I presume rather insignificant.
Re: Human versus Machine
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:59 am
Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:Thanks Edsel!Edsel Apostol wrote:Just continue with your work Lyudmil. Never mind the trolls!
The problem is they think I am the troll.
If your book is good then it is not original. For good ideas don't come out of nothing. Although Penicillin was discovered by accident.
And if it is original then it must be bad.
Re: Human versus Machine
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:25 pm
Henk wrote:Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:Thanks Edsel!Edsel Apostol wrote:Just continue with your work Lyudmil. Never mind the trolls!
The problem is they think I am the troll.
If your book is good then it is not original. For good ideas don't come out of nothing. Although Penicillin was discovered by accident.
And if it is original then it must be bad.
You excel at this.
Re: Part III
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:29 pm
Seriously, I am just curious and can not remember any consistent measurements, so would be glad for some feedback.
If engine A draws a match of 20 games against engine B with both engines not pondering, what would be the score, how many elos will engine A that ponders gain in the same match against engine B that does not ponder?
How much dependent this will be on time control?
If engine A draws a match of 20 games against engine B with both engines not pondering, what would be the score, how many elos will engine A that ponders gain in the same match against engine B that does not ponder?
How much dependent this will be on time control?
Re: Human versus Machine
Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:11 am
Henk wrote:Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:Thanks Edsel!Edsel Apostol wrote:Just continue with your work Lyudmil. Never mind the trolls!
The problem is they think I am the troll.
If your book is good then it is not original. For good ideas don't come out of nothing. Although Penicillin was discovered by accident.
And if it is original then it must be bad.
It's probably somewhere around 20 elo at intermediate levels (more at blitz/bullet, less under TCEC conditions) which sounds like a significant amount but only implies a 10.5 to 9.5 score! That's in the ballpark of what the compiler bug is costing Komodo in TCEC in terms of speed lost.
Re: Human versus Machine
Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:55 pm
lkaufman wrote:Henk wrote:Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:Thanks Edsel!Edsel Apostol wrote:Just continue with your work Lyudmil. Never mind the trolls!
The problem is they think I am the troll.
If your book is good then it is not original. For good ideas don't come out of nothing. Although Penicillin was discovered by accident.
And if it is original then it must be bad.
It's probably somewhere around 20 elo at intermediate levels (more at blitz/bullet, less under TCEC conditions) which sounds like a significant amount but only implies a 10.5 to 9.5 score! That's in the ballpark of what the compiler bug is costing Komodo in TCEC in terms of speed lost.
That ballpark would make for 5 full points in 100 games, just the difference between Komodo or Houdini winning TCEC.
Re: Human versus Machine
Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 2:35 pm
lkaufman wrote:Henk wrote:Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:Thanks Edsel!Edsel Apostol wrote:Just continue with your work Lyudmil. Never mind the trolls!
The problem is they think I am the troll.
If your book is good then it is not original. For good ideas don't come out of nothing. Although Penicillin was discovered by accident.
And if it is original then it must be bad.
It's probably somewhere around 20 elo at intermediate levels (more at blitz/bullet, less under TCEC conditions) which sounds like a significant amount but only implies a 10.5 to 9.5 score! That's in the ballpark of what the compiler bug is costing Komodo in TCEC in terms of speed lost.
You seems to be answering in a wrong thread but your answer is shameless and wrong. First there is not even a remotely reliable figure regarding what is actual slow down of K 1960-1970 vs. 1959 on TCEC hardware. BS-ing about 23% when on 22 cores it is 8% is just ridiculous.
It is quite easy to compare Komodo in early opening phase of the games in stage 2 and now in stage 3. In stage 2 it was typically around 47Mnps and now is 40Mnps. So that is reduction of 15% at best.
Second, on TCEC conditions doubling single core nodes gives around 30-40Elo, doubling it in terms of additional cores hardly 20Elo. Question is how much of the so-called K bug is related to single core performance. The indication is quite strong that it is exclusively SMP speed loss. In that case 15% speed loss would translate into log(0.85)/log(0.5)*20 = 4.7 Elo.
That is like 0.5 points more for K in 100 games match against H.
And Robert Houdard with his 9Elo estimation was more than generous to you guys, but you obviously have no shame...
Re: Human versus Machine
Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:22 pm
Milos wrote:lkaufman wrote:Henk wrote:Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:Thanks Edsel!Edsel Apostol wrote:Just continue with your work Lyudmil. Never mind the trolls!
The problem is they think I am the troll. :D
If your book is good then it is not original. For good ideas don't come out of nothing. Although Penicillin was discovered by accident.
And if it is original then it must be bad.
It's probably somewhere around 20 elo at intermediate levels (more at blitz/bullet, less under TCEC conditions) which sounds like a significant amount but only implies a 10.5 to 9.5 score! That's in the ballpark of what the compiler bug is costing Komodo in TCEC in terms of speed lost.
You seems to be answering in a wrong thread but your answer is shameless and wrong. First there is not even a remotely reliable figure regarding what is actual slow down of K 1960-1970 vs. 1959 on TCEC hardware. BS-ing about 23% when on 22 cores it is 8% is just ridiculous.
It is quite easy to compare Komodo in early opening phase of the games in stage 2 and now in stage 3. In stage 2 it was typically around 47Mnps and now is 40Mnps. So that is reduction of 15% at best.
Second, on TCEC conditions doubling single core nodes gives around 30-40Elo, doubling it in terms of additional cores hardly 20Elo. Question is how much of the so-called K bug is related to single core performance. The indication is quite strong that it is exclusively SMP speed loss. In that case 15% speed loss would translate into log(0.85)/log(0.5)*20 = 4.7 Elo.
That is like 0.5 points more for K in 100 games match against H.
And Robert Houdard with his 9Elo estimation was more than generous to you guys, but you obviously have no shame...
Well, you are in the wrong thread and LKs post has nothing to do with what you replied, obviously driven by some agenda.
He simply answered to a question of LT, but the orginal quote somehow slipped away:
If engine A draws a match of 20 games against engine B with both engines not pondering, what would be the score, how many elos will engine A that ponders gain in the same match against engine B that does not ponder?
How much dependent this will be on time control?