Ordo 1.0.9 (new features for testers)

[Frank Quisinsky]

Ah ...

Move average should be displayed too.

My Rating list games played with resign=off
In such a case is move-average a nice information !!

Best
and again and again
THANKS, I have fun at 03:00 German time.
Very crazy ...

Frank

[PaulieD]

Would there be a way to turn the synonyms on or off? One could then have a choice of the 'Engine A" naming convention or the original/actual engine name?

[PaulieD]

Never mind, figured it out...

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Miguel,

on the end of the calculation it would be great to see the tournament category.

Example:

Code: Select all

White advantage = 38.53 +/- 0.66
Draw rate (equal opponents) = 47.71 % +/- 0.14
Tournament Category 22 = 2818 Elo (2801 - 2825 Elo)

2818 Elo is the average from the engines in the list.

Better is this one (on the end of the rating list) ...
And all is complete!

Code: Select all

  Tournament Category         : 22 = 2818 Elo (2801 - 2825 Elo)
  Move average                : 176.42 / 88.210
  White advantage             : 38.64  +/- 0.67
  Draw rate (equal opponents) : 47.83% +/- 0.14
 
  Games        :  167550 (finished)
  White Wins   :   57960 (34.6%)
  Black Wins   :   42491 (25.4%)
  Draws        :   67099 (40.0%)
  Unfinished   :       0

  White Perf.  :  54.6%
  Black Perf.  :  45.4%

  ECO A        =  31455 games (18.8%)
  ECO B        =  39367 games (23.5%)
  ECO C        =  33659 games (20.1%)
  ECO D        =  33226 games (19.8%)
  ECO E        =  29843 games (17.8%)

Move average for each engine should be to see too (I wrote it before). This one with a parameter I can set on the position I like for the Rating List.

Best
Frank

[Ajedrecista]

Hello Frank:

I do not see category so important because rating lists are useful because of rating differences, but it is the same to say that SF7 and K9.3 have 3300 Elo and H4 has 3200 (just an example); or SF7 and K9.3 have 3500 Elo and H4 has 3400.

As a side note, I think that 2818 Elo corresponds with category XXIII (23) in human standards, where the category is:

Code: Select all

! Pseudocode.

if (rating > 2250) then
  category = ceiling((rating - 2250)/25)
end if

I hope I am right with my definition. Ceiling[(2818 - 2250)/25] = ceiling(568/25) = ceiling(22.72) = 23. Am I wrong?

Regards from Spain.

Ajedrecista.

[michiguel]

Bug fix
https://github.com/michiguel/Ordo/releases/tag/1.0.9.2

When I modified the internal structures in 1.0.9, I omitted to add one line. That slowed down the simulations because they were all "rejected" by the internal checks. It looked like multiprocessing was not working by it was just this simple problem that make the whole thing sloooowww if you used the -s switch.

I have many suggestions to add, I will get to them soon.

Miguel

[michiguel]

Bug fix
https://github.com/michiguel/Ordo/releases/tag/1.0.9.2

When I modified the internal structures in 1.0.9, I omitted to add one line. That slowed down the simulations because they were all "rejected" by the internal checks. It looked like multiprocessing was not working by it was just this simple problem that make the whole thing sloooowww if you used the -s switch.

I have many suggestions to add, I will get to them soon.

Miguel

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Miguel,

have a look here ...
Very small mistake ...

Code: Select all

   # PLAYER                           : RATING  PLAYED     (%)    D(%)  ERROR  OppAvg
  76 Gaviota 1.0 AVX x64              : 2729.7    7150   42.3%    37.4    6.1  2799.7

Two ways:
42.3% without _%_
or the 37.4 with _%_

Looks better ...

Best
Frank

[michiguel]

Hi Miguel,

have a look here ...
Very small mistake ...

Code: Select all

   # PLAYER                           : RATING  PLAYED     (%)    D(%)  ERROR  OppAvg
  76 Gaviota 1.0 AVX x64              : 2729.7    7150   42.3%    37.4    6.1  2799.7

Two ways:
42.3% without _%_
or the 37.4 with _%_

Looks better ...

Best
Frank

Yes, I will modify that.

Meanwhile...
https://github.com/michiguel/Ordo/releases/tag/1.0.9.5

I added two of your suggestions
12: OppErr Average of the opponent errors
13: OppN Number of opponents

Which inspire me to add one that I think it is better than OppN

14: OppDiv

Diversity of opponents. If the number of games is equally distributed, it is the same as OppN, but if most of the games come from one opponent, it will get closer to 1. This is the "Effective number of opponents".

I have some other suggestions that I will be adding.

Miguel

[Ozymandias]

13: OppN Number of opponents

Which inspire me to add one that I think it is better than OppN

14: OppDiv

Diversity of opponents. If the number of games is equally distributed, it is the same as OppN, but if most of the games come from one opponent, it will get closer to 1. This is the "Effective number of opponents".

That seems more in the spirit of the request.

Now for mine, regarding players with few games. It's a bit inconvenient, that you have to use the -g switch when some players are under-represented. It should be possible to specify the minimum number of games for a player to be rated, and after the program runs, Ordo could list those that were left out and how many games they had. In a related request, I would also include an option for the user to specify the percentage of games a cluster needs, to be rated. Below that mark, I wouldn't rate games from marginal clusters.