Piece weights with regression analysis (in Russian)

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.
mvk
Posts: 589
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 8:15 pm

Re: Piece weights with regression analysis (in Russian)

Post by mvk » Sun May 03, 2015 3:07 pm

Gerd Isenberg wrote:
WinPooh wrote:My article on a polular Russian IT portal:
http://habrahabr.ru/post/254753/

It is in Russian, but I believe the text is quite understandable even without translation.
Courtesy of Vladimir, I made a CPW page trying a translation with the help of google translate, improvements and suggestions welcome.

https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com ... n+Analysis

Cheers,
Gerd
Isn't the essence of this method exactly the same what everybody else has been doing now for a couple of years and which has become known as "Texel's tuning method"? (That is, a fit of the evaluation in the percentage domain against the game results?). The only real difference is that we use much larger data sets. All other differences seem not essential at first glance.
[Account deleted]

Gerd Isenberg
Posts: 2128
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:47 pm
Location: Hattingen, Germany

Re: Piece weights with regression analysis (in Russian)

Post by Gerd Isenberg » Sun May 03, 2015 5:40 pm

mvk wrote:
Gerd Isenberg wrote:
WinPooh wrote:My article on a polular Russian IT portal:
http://habrahabr.ru/post/254753/

It is in Russian, but I believe the text is quite understandable even without translation.
Courtesy of Vladimir, I made a CPW page trying a translation with the help of google translate, improvements and suggestions welcome.

https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com ... n+Analysis

Cheers,
Gerd
Isn't the essence of this method exactly the same what everybody else has been doing now for a couple of years and which has become known as "Texel's tuning method"? (That is, a fit of the evaluation in the percentage domain against the game results?). The only real difference is that we use much larger data sets. All other differences seem not essential at first glance.
You ask me? I just tried to translate the text and try to understand the math ;-)
http://cs229.stanford.edu/materials.html
http://cs229.stanford.edu/notes/cs229-notes1.pdf
http://cs229.stanford.edu/section/cs229-linalg.pdf

So far I found the cost function for the logistic regression much more complicated than Peter's average evaluation error function over all features.

Vladimir's input x for the five pieces are several material imbalances during the course of a game with one outcome y...

User avatar
Evert
Posts: 2923
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 11:42 pm
Location: NL
Contact:

Re: Piece weights with regression analysis (in Russian)

Post by Evert » Sun May 03, 2015 7:26 pm

mvk wrote:
Gerd Isenberg wrote:
WinPooh wrote:My article on a polular Russian IT portal:
http://habrahabr.ru/post/254753/

It is in Russian, but I believe the text is quite understandable even without translation.
Courtesy of Vladimir, I made a CPW page trying a translation with the help of google translate, improvements and suggestions welcome.

https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com ... n+Analysis

Cheers,
Gerd
Isn't the essence of this method exactly the same what everybody else has been doing now for a couple of years and which has become known as "Texel's tuning method"? (That is, a fit of the evaluation in the percentage domain against the game results?). The only real difference is that we use much larger data sets. All other differences seem not essential at first glance.
As far as I can tell, yes.
Still, the explanation is nice (err... if you get it translated from Russian) and the linked utility is also potentially useful.

Dann Corbit
Posts: 10182
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:57 pm
Location: Redmond, WA USA
Contact:

Re: Piece weights with regression analysis (in Russian)

Post by Dann Corbit » Sun May 03, 2015 7:32 pm

There are some minor differences (such as the S curve for fitting) but the main difference is the excellent and detailed explanation of the math. Hence, the web page.

mvk
Posts: 589
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 8:15 pm

Re: Piece weights with regression analysis (in Russian)

Post by mvk » Sun May 03, 2015 7:56 pm

Dann Corbit wrote:There are some minor differences (such as the S curve for fitting)
Ok, but that is what i mean with "evaluation in the percentage domain" (as opposed to pawn-value domain). Esp for the piece values that is significant and we are all doing that. I'm sorry for being too terse.
[Account deleted]

User avatar
Ajedrecista
Posts: 1401
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:04 pm
Location: Madrid, Spain.
Contact:

Re: Results of 234 players.

Post by Ajedrecista » Mon May 04, 2015 8:34 am

Hello Vincent:
Vinvin wrote:As I see, it's more the value of the pawn who changed more over time (pieces values between them don't change a lot). In my sense, it would be better to set the value of the knight to 300 to have a more clear view of the evolution over time.
Could you do that, please ?

Thanks,
Vincent
I am sorry but I can't. I had a long weekend but I will very busy since right now for do such a big task. I only see a solution: you (or anyone else) can do it but changing regression.cpp file. You can find 100 * theta / theta[0] for various i; I propose that before compiling from sources, you should replace that by 300 * theta / theta[1] (fix N = 300 cp) or by 500 * theta / theta[3] (fix R = 500 cp). I say that because of roundings: an easy output is an easy output.

I know, re-run 234 PGNs is boring and very time consuming.

As a side note, I see that Anand's bishop value is circa 230 cp in Vladimir's article while I wrote 220 cp, keeping the values of the rest of pieces. I guess that we picked the same PGN and one of us made a typo, surely me. Being perfect for 234*4 = 936 values is almost impossible, specially for me.

Regards from Spain.

Ajedrecista.

Xann
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 6:14 pm
Location: Lille, France

Re: Piece weights with regression analysis (in Russian)

Post by Xann » Mon May 04, 2015 2:24 pm

Hi Marcel,
mvk wrote:Isn't the essence of this method exactly the same what everybody else has been doing now for a couple of years and which has become known as "Texel's tuning method"? (That is, a fit of the evaluation in the percentage domain against the game results?). The only real difference is that we use much larger data sets. All other differences seem not essential at first glance.
Sorry to hijack your post but this topic has been bugging me for a while: isn't "Texel's tuning method" just logistic regression that has been used in games for about twenty years (see Buro's papers for instance)?

I don't see any difference between all three apart from QS vs. eval, which seems a minor issue to me. A single-neuron ANN is also the same.

Fabien.

User avatar
Bloodbane
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:17 pm

Re: Piece weights with regression analysis (in Russian)

Post by Bloodbane » Mon May 04, 2015 2:41 pm

Xann wrote:Hi Marcel,
mvk wrote:Isn't the essence of this method exactly the same what everybody else has been doing now for a couple of years and which has become known as "Texel's tuning method"? (That is, a fit of the evaluation in the percentage domain against the game results?). The only real difference is that we use much larger data sets. All other differences seem not essential at first glance.
Sorry to hijack your post but this topic has been bugging me for a while: isn't "Texel's tuning method" just logistic regression that has been used in games for about twenty years (see Buro's papers for instance)?

I don't see any difference between all three apart from QS vs. eval, which seems a minor issue to me. A single-neuron ANN is also the same.

Fabien.
Seems that way to me.
Functional programming combines the flexibility and power of abstract mathematics with the intuitive clarity of abstract mathematics.
https://github.com/mAarnos

mvk
Posts: 589
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 8:15 pm

Re: Piece weights with regression analysis (in Russian)

Post by mvk » Mon May 04, 2015 3:12 pm

Xann wrote:Sorry to hijack your post but this topic has been bugging me for a while: isn't "Texel's tuning method" just logistic regression that has been used in games for about twenty years (see Buro's papers for instance)?

I don't see any difference between all three apart from QS vs. eval, which seems a minor issue to me. A single-neuron ANN is also the same.
I don't know. I remember having read about the idea of assigning elo to othello pattern features. Instead of guessing, do you have links to specific papers? (both Buro, and also ANN?)
[Account deleted]

Gerd Isenberg
Posts: 2128
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:47 pm
Location: Hattingen, Germany

Re: Piece weights with regression analysis (in Russian)

Post by Gerd Isenberg » Mon May 04, 2015 3:27 pm

Xann wrote:Hi Marcel,
mvk wrote:Isn't the essence of this method exactly the same what everybody else has been doing now for a couple of years and which has become known as "Texel's tuning method"? (That is, a fit of the evaluation in the percentage domain against the game results?). The only real difference is that we use much larger data sets. All other differences seem not essential at first glance.
Sorry to hijack your post but this topic has been bugging me for a while: isn't "Texel's tuning method" just logistic regression that has been used in games for about twenty years (see Buro's papers for instance)?

I don't see any difference between all three apart from QS vs. eval, which seems a minor issue to me. A single-neuron ANN is also the same.

Fabien.
Wow, so simple is that ;-)
Slowly the dust settles. Thanks for the insight, yes, a single-neuron ANN.

I don't exactly get that with the cost function requiering gradient descent to find the optimum, i.e. the error formula with least squares as used in Texel Tuning and Deep Thought Tuning and the "wild formulas" in Buro's paper?
http://www.jair.org/media/179/live-179-1475-jair.pdf

Post Reply