I think the draw rate plays a role but others can explain that better than me.cdani wrote:Yes, but with standar elo, 69% is 140 elo, not 118. Is simply different for bayeselo?Sven Schüle wrote:The difference between 59 and -59 is 118 which is quite a good match for 140.cdani wrote:Hi.
I have done a self test at 25+0.03 with 4 threads:
The difference in % is equivalent to 140 elo, but bayeselo shows +-59. Someone knows what I'm interpreting bad? I used bayeselo for more than a year and I did not compared the % until now with standard elo.Code: Select all
Rank Name Elo + - games score oppo. draw 1 Andscacs 0.74039 59 7 6 2512 69% -59 45% 2 Andscacs 0.73174 -59 6 7 2512 31% 59 45%
Trying to improve lazy smp
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 4052
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 9:57 pm
- Location: Berlin, Germany
- Full name: Sven Schüle
Re: Trying to improve lazy smp
-
- Posts: 931
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 3:46 pm
- Location: New York
- Full name: Álvaro Begué (RuyDos)
Re: Trying to improve lazy smp
Yes, the answer is somewhere in this page: http://remi.coulom.free.fr/Bayesian-Elo/Sven Schüle wrote:I think the draw rate plays a role but others can explain that better than me.cdani wrote:Yes, but with standar elo, 69% is 140 elo, not 118. Is simply different for bayeselo?Sven Schüle wrote:The difference between 59 and -59 is 118 which is quite a good match for 140.cdani wrote:Hi.
I have done a self test at 25+0.03 with 4 threads:
The difference in % is equivalent to 140 elo, but bayeselo shows +-59. Someone knows what I'm interpreting bad? I used bayeselo for more than a year and I did not compared the % until now with standard elo.Code: Select all
Rank Name Elo + - games score oppo. draw 1 Andscacs 0.74039 59 7 6 2512 69% -59 45% 2 Andscacs 0.73174 -59 6 7 2512 31% 59 45%
[...]In order to perform this calculation, it is necessary to assume a little more than the usual ELO formula. The expected score as a function of the Elo difference is not enough. We need the probability of a win, a draw and a loss as a function of the Elo difference.
-
- Posts: 20943
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
- Location: Birmingham, AL
Re: Trying to improve lazy smp
What draw rate do you assume for your 69 = 140?cdani wrote:Yes, but with standar elo, 69% is 140 elo, not 118. Is simply different for bayeselo?Sven Schüle wrote:The difference between 59 and -59 is 118 which is quite a good match for 140.cdani wrote:Hi.
I have done a self test at 25+0.03 with 4 threads:
The difference in % is equivalent to 140 elo, but bayeselo shows +-59. Someone knows what I'm interpreting bad? I used bayeselo for more than a year and I did not compared the % until now with standard elo.Code: Select all
Rank Name Elo + - games score oppo. draw 1 Andscacs 0.74039 59 7 6 2512 69% -59 45% 2 Andscacs 0.73174 -59 6 7 2512 31% 59 45%
-
- Posts: 2204
- Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 10:24 am
- Location: Andorra
Re: Trying to improve lazy smp
I just taked this 140 from FIDE (in fact 141):bob wrote:What draw rate do you assume for your 69 = 140?
https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html ... ew=article
Daniel José - http://www.andscacs.com
-
- Posts: 2204
- Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 10:24 am
- Location: Andorra
Re: Trying to improve lazy smp
Thanks!!AlvaroBegue wrote:Yes, the answer is somewhere in this page: http://remi.coulom.free.fr/Bayesian-Elo/
[...]In order to perform this calculation, it is necessary to assume a little more than the usual ELO formula. The expected score as a function of the Elo difference is not enough. We need the probability of a win, a draw and a loss as a function of the Elo difference.
Daniel José - http://www.andscacs.com
-
- Posts: 20943
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
- Location: Birmingham, AL
Re: Trying to improve lazy smp
That has an assumed draw rate however, which might not be correct for your test games...cdani wrote:I just taked this 140 from FIDE (in fact 141):bob wrote:What draw rate do you assume for your 69 = 140?
https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html ... ew=article
-
- Posts: 4052
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 9:57 pm
- Location: Berlin, Germany
- Full name: Sven Schüle
Re: Trying to improve lazy smp
No, the draw rate is simply not part of the underlying theoretical model of the Elo rating system as it is used by the FIDE. Bayeselo uses a different model that takes the probabilities for win, draw, and loss into account as well as other factors like colors. The table in the FIDE handbook lists percentage expectancy values mapped to rating differences (and vice versa) based on the normal distribution, no draw rate is involved there.bob wrote:That has an assumed draw rate however, which might not be correct for your test games...cdani wrote:I just taked this 140 from FIDE (in fact 141):bob wrote:What draw rate do you assume for your 69 = 140?
https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html ... ew=article
-
- Posts: 10948
- Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:21 pm
- Full name: Kai Laskos
Re: Trying to improve lazy smp
I am confused, is this 16 core Andscacs against 1 core other engines? To be ahead of Komodo 5.1 is a feat, that's why I am asking.cdani wrote:
I have been also able to do a limited test at 20+.03 with 16 cores:
The result is very good, clearly over 3100 elo.Code: Select all
1 Andscacs 0.74042 114 19 19 704 69% -23 27% 2 Komodo 5.1r2 64-bit 86 40 40 140 46% 114 34% 3 Senpai 1.0 6 41 42 140 34% 114 29% 4 Gull 1.2 x64 -40 41 43 142 27% 114 31% 5 Hannibal 1.3x64 -66 44 46 142 26% 114 20% 6 Protector 1.7.0 -99 45 48 140 22% 114 21%
-
- Posts: 2204
- Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 10:24 am
- Location: Andorra
Re: Trying to improve lazy smp
Yes, 16 cores against 1 coreLaskos wrote:I am confused, is this 16 core Andscacs against 1 core other engines? To be ahead of Komodo 5.1 is a feat, that's why I am asking.cdani wrote:
I have been also able to do a limited test at 20+.03 with 16 cores:
The result is very good, clearly over 3100 elo.Code: Select all
1 Andscacs 0.74042 114 19 19 704 69% -23 27% 2 Komodo 5.1r2 64-bit 86 40 40 140 46% 114 34% 3 Senpai 1.0 6 41 42 140 34% 114 29% 4 Gull 1.2 x64 -40 41 43 142 27% 114 31% 5 Hannibal 1.3x64 -66 44 46 142 26% 114 20% 6 Protector 1.7.0 -99 45 48 140 22% 114 21%
Is how I have done most of my tests.
Daniel José - http://www.andscacs.com
-
- Posts: 10948
- Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:21 pm
- Full name: Kai Laskos
Re: Trying to improve lazy smp
Good result. On equal hardware, on a par with Stockfish 2.1, Komodo 2.03, Rybka 3, stronger than the new wave of engines like Texel, Hannibal, Nirvana, Cheng.cdani wrote:Yes, 16 cores against 1 coreLaskos wrote:I am confused, is this 16 core Andscacs against 1 core other engines? To be ahead of Komodo 5.1 is a feat, that's why I am asking.cdani wrote:
I have been also able to do a limited test at 20+.03 with 16 cores:
The result is very good, clearly over 3100 elo.Code: Select all
1 Andscacs 0.74042 114 19 19 704 69% -23 27% 2 Komodo 5.1r2 64-bit 86 40 40 140 46% 114 34% 3 Senpai 1.0 6 41 42 140 34% 114 29% 4 Gull 1.2 x64 -40 41 43 142 27% 114 31% 5 Hannibal 1.3x64 -66 44 46 142 26% 114 20% 6 Protector 1.7.0 -99 45 48 140 22% 114 21%
Is how I have done most of my tests.