Trying to improve lazy smp

Discussion of chess software programming and technical issues.

Moderators: bob, hgm, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
Sven
Posts: 3830
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany
Full name: Sven Schüle
Contact:

Re: Trying to improve lazy smp

Post by Sven » Thu Apr 16, 2015 5:46 pm

cdani wrote:
Sven Schüle wrote:
cdani wrote:Hi.
I have done a self test at 25+0.03 with 4 threads:

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%
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.
The difference between 59 and -59 is 118 which is quite a good match for 140.
Yes, but with standar elo, 69% is 140 elo, not 118. Is simply different for bayeselo?
I think the draw rate plays a role but others can explain that better than me.

AlvaroBegue
Posts: 922
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 2:46 pm
Location: New York
Full name: Álvaro Begué (RuyDos)

Re: Trying to improve lazy smp

Post by AlvaroBegue » Thu Apr 16, 2015 5:49 pm

Sven Schüle wrote:
cdani wrote:
Sven Schüle wrote:
cdani wrote:Hi.
I have done a self test at 25+0.03 with 4 threads:

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%
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.
The difference between 59 and -59 is 118 which is quite a good match for 140.
Yes, but with standar elo, 69% is 140 elo, not 118. Is simply different for bayeselo?
I think the draw rate plays a role but others can explain that better than me.
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.

bob
Posts: 20640
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: Trying to improve lazy smp

Post by bob » Thu Apr 16, 2015 9:08 pm

cdani wrote:
Sven Schüle wrote:
cdani wrote:Hi.
I have done a self test at 25+0.03 with 4 threads:

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%
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.
The difference between 59 and -59 is 118 which is quite a good match for 140.
Yes, but with standar elo, 69% is 140 elo, not 118. Is simply different for bayeselo?
What draw rate do you assume for your 69 = 140?

User avatar
cdani
Posts: 2104
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 9:24 am
Location: Andorra
Contact:

Re: Trying to improve lazy smp

Post by cdani » Thu Apr 16, 2015 10:38 pm

bob wrote:What draw rate do you assume for your 69 = 140?
I just taked this 140 from FIDE (in fact 141):

https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html ... ew=article

User avatar
cdani
Posts: 2104
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 9:24 am
Location: Andorra
Contact:

Re: Trying to improve lazy smp

Post by cdani » Thu Apr 16, 2015 10:38 pm

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.
Thanks!!

bob
Posts: 20640
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: Trying to improve lazy smp

Post by bob » Fri Apr 17, 2015 12:23 am

cdani wrote:
bob wrote:What draw rate do you assume for your 69 = 140?
I just taked this 140 from FIDE (in fact 141):

https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html ... ew=article
That has an assumed draw rate however, which might not be correct for your test games...

Sven
Posts: 3830
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany
Full name: Sven Schüle
Contact:

Re: Trying to improve lazy smp

Post by Sven » Fri Apr 17, 2015 9:11 am

bob wrote:
cdani wrote:
bob wrote:What draw rate do you assume for your 69 = 140?
I just taked this 140 from FIDE (in fact 141):

https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html ... ew=article
That has an assumed draw rate however, which might not be correct for your test games...
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.

User avatar
Laskos
Posts: 9489
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:21 pm
Full name: Kai Laskos

Re: Trying to improve lazy smp

Post by Laskos » Fri Apr 17, 2015 10:14 am

cdani wrote:
I have been also able to do a limited test at 20+.03 with 16 cores:

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%
The result is very good, clearly over 3100 elo.
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.

User avatar
cdani
Posts: 2104
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 9:24 am
Location: Andorra
Contact:

Re: Trying to improve lazy smp

Post by cdani » Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:13 am

Laskos wrote:
cdani wrote:
I have been also able to do a limited test at 20+.03 with 16 cores:

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%
The result is very good, clearly over 3100 elo.
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.
Yes, 16 cores against 1 core :-)
Is how I have done most of my tests.

User avatar
Laskos
Posts: 9489
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:21 pm
Full name: Kai Laskos

Re: Trying to improve lazy smp

Post by Laskos » Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:29 am

cdani wrote:
Laskos wrote:
cdani wrote:
I have been also able to do a limited test at 20+.03 with 16 cores:

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%
The result is very good, clearly over 3100 elo.
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.
Yes, 16 cores against 1 core :-)
Is how I have done most of my tests.
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.

Post Reply