| |
BGonline.org Forums
31P-11, data
Posted By: Nack Ballard In Response To: 31P-11, data (David Rockwell)
Date: Wednesday, 21 July 2010, at 4:34 a.m.
What I meant is, "I don't see how this sort of same-seeding can net gain."
The issue is that same-seeding reduces the effective number of trials. (Or at least that's our assumption -- if it doesn't, then both sides of our discussion are moot.) It sounds clever to isolate the effect of the higher ply by same-seeding, but IMO the best way to do that is to maximize the (effective) number of trials.
Consider the extremes. If you roll 1k on each ply, you're desperate to have twice as many trials in order to reduce the variance and obtain a meaningful result, and different seeds guarantee you've done that: clearly that would be preferable to same-seeding. OTOH, if you roll a billion trials on each ply, you've squeezed all the variance out anyway and there's no need to use the same seed.
In other words, you're already seeing the effect of the higher ply by rolling out the position a sufficiently large number of trials on different seeds. We can't have it both ways by saying that we've rolled it out so many trials that the variance is gone and therefore the .003 difference we are looking means something special (i.e., it's not just variance) and yet somehow we couldn't say that the .003 is meaningful while using different seeds.
I much appreciate your offer to reroll, but no need -- I doubt same-seeding makes much difference. IMO, mainly what it does is reduce the effective number of trials, but not by much. OTOH, if after due consideration you disagree with what I've said above and want to keep same-seeding parallel plies, I won't complain, having said my piece. Mostly, I'm happy to have the data. :)
Nack
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.