|
|
#1
03.02.2023, 22:40
#2
04.02.2023, 04:31
|
|||||||||||
|
AW: Khmelnitsky test: Mephisto IIIS Glasgow
Hi Eric,
Thank you very much for your detailed analysises. Like your excellent analysis of the Chessmaster Diamond on your website, they provide valuable information about the strength and weaknesses of the engines. I've a question regarding the test setting though: I found a description in German language, how the Khmelnitsky test distinguishes between strategy, tactics, opening, endgame, etc. (For those, who are interested: https://www.freechess.info/ueebersic...ing-guide.html) But where are the human player profiles taken from? Best regards Markus 
|
#3
04.02.2023, 05:03
|
||||||||||||
|
AW: Khmelnitsky test: Mephisto IIIS Glasgow
Hello Eric,
Thank you very much for this very informative test series. Especially the improved defensive capability of the Mephisto Glasgow on the Mephisto Phoenix I could also observe in the context of my competitions! The overall weak endgame performances, even under Mephisto Phoenix also correspond to my expectations and are also present in practice. I also share your assessments, which are based on your test. Really great work Eric!  Greetings Egbert Geändert von Egbert (04.02.2023 um 07:50 Uhr) Grund: Ergänzung
|
#4
04.02.2023, 08:58
|
|||||||||||
|
AW: Khmelnitsky test: Mephisto IIIS Glasgow
 Zitat von Beeco76
But where are the human player profiles taken from?
Well, the data sheet can be red the other way around: I am a 1400 Elo player, which score (%) am I supposed to achieve per domain of chess knowledge? An interpolation can be performed between two Elo values in order to get an accurate percentage within the 3% spread. Of course, the computer-player comparison cannot usefully rely on an Elo graph (this would just add a circle to the basic Elo-graph, plotting the player's strength). So the comparison graph is based on %, as well displaying usual, average strengths and weaknesses of the human player. By the way, time ago I used this idea (not mentioned within the book!) to provide a graph displaying how the skills develop along to the Elo, and posted about in the Hiarcs forum. Here is the graph: and my comments: Code:
- skills develop rather evenly from 830 to 900 player (very same shape), with natural ability for calculations and no, to very little, knowledge about opening phase. Of course, standard endgame positions are likely to be unknown. - 1000 player gets some clues at tactics and related stuff (attack, defense, recognizing threats) - 1200 player has developped clues in strategy and standard endgame positions - 1400 player is a better attacker and went on developping knowledge about standard endgame positions - 1600 player developped tactical skills including sacrifice - 1800 player went on with tactics and better endgame knowledge - 2000 player is a better defender and attacker - 2200 player shows evidence of a breakthrough with strategy, plus reinforced endgame mastery - 2400 player is very balanced, with strategy, opening and middlegame as most enhanced areas. Beware the strong defenser and counterattacker!
|
#5
04.02.2023, 09:25
|
|||||||||||
|
AW: Khmelnitsky test: Mephisto IIIS Glasgow
Now back to my mainstream, the Glasgow program.
Code:
SMhz Ratio/7.2Mhz Log(Ratio) KT Elo 7.2 1.00 0.000000 1374 12 1.67 0.221849 1441 38 5.28 0.722451 1541 480 66.67 1.823909 1755 The curve's closeness to a straight line is obvious. This means the Elo growth follows the usual rule (a constant value gain per doubling in speed) even when reaching sky-high acceleration. I was expecting more of a drop in the curve from the Mephisto Phoenix, it is not so, well done from the Glasgow program! I added a polynomial regression curve to get the displayed formula we will use later on. Geändert von Tibono (04.02.2023 um 09:28 Uhr) Grund: typo
|
| Folgende 3 Benutzer sagen Danke zu Tibono für den nützlichen Beitrag: | ||
#6
04.02.2023, 09:46
|
|||||||||||
|
AW: Khmelnitsky test: Mephisto IIIS Glasgow
Next step is an easy one: let's find out the Elo gain value per doubling. No need for hard calculations, the worksheet does it for us: just scale the speed according to number of doubling, and add a linear regression line - the slope factor is the value:
The gain is 61.48 Elo points per doubling (on average, according to the Khmelnitsky test).
|
#7
04.02.2023, 10:45
|
|||||||||||
|
AW: Khmelnitsky test: Mephisto IIIS Glasgow
So far we "only" leveraged the Khmelnitsky test data, in a rather straightforward way. Let's now explore a more hazardous area: try to standardize the data, introducing the knowledge we have thanks to the Wiki-Elo-List.
As the KT results do comply with the rule of thumb (constant Elo gain per doubling), to my understanding we only need a shift in the KT score to better align with the Wiki-Elo-List (meaning: add a constant value). Do you remember the polynomial formula displayed above? We juste need to substitute a better value to the final constant (and keep the x² and x part of the formula unchanged). So far, the scope of the test only includes two devices for which the Wiki-Elo-List provides values: the fast MephiIIIS and the Ph.Revelation. But we have a third device with a known Elo within the list: the Ph.Revelation II. Let's use it as well, as the polynomial formula can provide an estimate for its KT Elo: Code:
SMhz Constant-free Wiki Elo Delta Standardized KT Elo
IIIS Glasgow 7.2 0.0 1701
IIIS Glasgow 12Mhz 12 53.2 1707 1653.8 1754
Phoenix Revelation 38 165.6 1900 1734.4 1866
Phoenix Revelation II 109 259.0 1973 1714.0 1960
Phoenix Revelation II AE 196 307.2 2008
Phoenix Reflexion 1,5Ghz 244 324.4 2025
Phoenix Reflexion 1,7Ghz 272 332.8 2034
Mephisto Phoenix 480 375.3 2076
average delta: 1700.7
(see above formula within the graph) The delta is the Wiki-Elo minus the constant-free value; from which an average value is calculated. The standardized KT Elo is of course the same polynomial pattern with the average delta as a new constant: -21.3015036253151*LOG10(SMhz/7.2)^2+244.626198127018*LOG10(SMhz/7.2)+1700.7 This provides this new graph with "better" Elo values (better meaning standardized according to the Wiki-Elo-List data available so far): 'x' is still a bit of a complicated value (log of the speed ratio), so let's expand the x axis to the SMhz (speed in Mhz) value, and add a logarithmic regression curve to get a less cumbersome formula: New formula displayed: 89.7821030247115*LN(SMhz)+1531.25499276664 or, should you prefer the log function: 206.730932042356*LOG10(SMhz)+1531,25499276664 Resulting tab, using either of the above: Code:
IIIS Glasgow 1708 IIIS Glasgow 12Mhz 1754 Phoenix Revelation 1858 Phoenix Revelation II 1952 Phoenix Revelation II AE 2005 Phoenix Reflexion 1,5Ghz 2025 Phoenix Reflexion 1,7Ghz 2035 Mephisto Phoenix 2086
|
#8
04.02.2023, 11:05
|
||||||||||||
|
AW: Khmelnitsky test: Mephisto IIIS Glasgow
Hello Eric,
very nice, the Elo numbers should now harmonise very well with our existing lists. I am curious, should Mephisto Glasgow on Mephisto Phoenix actually get to approx. 2080 Elo in my competitions, that would be a real surprise for me. My experience has shown that the performance of Mephisto Glasgow is extremely dependent on the opponent. Very nice to see in the modest result against the Revelation II AE CXG Sphinx 40 with approx. 1983 Elo. Against the Novag Super Expert C, however, it was already around 2070 Elo and currently against Mephisto Dallas 68000, 12 MHz it looks like an even better result than 2070 Elo could come out. But of course after 3 games it is not yet possible to make a reliable forecast. I hope that all my results can contribute to calibrating your highly interesting Khmelnitsky test. Greetings Egbert
|
| Folgende 3 Benutzer sagen Danke zu Egbert für den nützlichen Beitrag: | ||
#9
04.02.2023, 11:09
|
|||||||||||
|
AW: Khmelnitsky test: Mephisto IIIS Glasgow
As a conclusion to the outcomes of the test, the KT figures (for those who prefer figures to graphs
 ):Code:
Score Endgame Midgame Opening Calcu. Std.Endg. Strategy Tactics R.Threats Attack Ct.attack Defense Sacrifice
IIIS Slow (waits) 1374 1328 1410 1598 1375 1057 1727 1237 1550 1310 1339 1475 1086
IIIS Fast (w/o waits) 1441 1328 1502 1909 1241 1057 1808 1374 1592 1401 1339 1446 1216
Phoenix Revelation 1541 1328 1806 2155 1683 1123 1472 1731 1784 1501 1767 1475 1520
Mephisto Phoenix 1755 1506 1890 2308 1824 1212 1521 2088 2022 1501 1980 1835 1691
MfG, Eric.
|
| Folgende 6 Benutzer sagen Danke zu Tibono für den nützlichen Beitrag: | ||
applechess (14.02.2023), Chessguru (04.02.2023), chessman68 (04.02.2023), Egbert (04.02.2023), Mapi (04.02.2023), Thomas J (04.02.2023) | ||
#10
14.02.2023, 07:53
|
||||||||||||
|
AW: Khmelnitsky test: Mephisto IIIS Glasgow
Good morning Eric,
tournament practice with the Mephisto Glasgow shows that the programme characteristics do indeed correspond to the profile you determined in the "Khmelnitsky test". I am impressed by the significance of this test procedure! If Mephisto Glasgow were improved in terms of endgame theory and endgames in general, it could rise to even higher playing strength regions, especially under Mephisto Phoenix. Greetings Egbert
|
 |
Hybrid-Darstellung
|
|
Ähnliche Themen
|
||||
| Thema | Erstellt von | Forum | Antworten | Letzter Beitrag |
| Test: Mephisto IIIS Glasgow Phoenix | mclane | Partien und Turniere / Games and Tournaments | 108 | 01.04.2024 14:35 |
| Frage: Mephisto Glasgow | applechess | Technische Fragen und Probleme / Tuning | 8 | 06.01.2019 12:31 |
| Frage: Mephisto III Glasgow | hebel | Technische Fragen und Probleme / Tuning | 1 | 25.06.2013 19:40 |
Alle Zeitangaben in WEZ +2. Es ist jetzt 10:40 Uhr.
Powered by vBulletin (Deutsch)
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.