Author: Ralph Queck
Date: 17:21:07 04/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 02, 2000 at 18:24:06, Ed Schröder wrote: >On April 02, 2000 at 16:33:24, blass uri wrote: > >>On April 02, 2000 at 15:46:54, Dave Gomboc wrote: >> >>>It sounds like your tunable policy paid off, in terms of people discovering good >>>adjusted parameters? >>> >>>Dave >> >>Chess knowledge=25 is not an idea of me. >> >>I suggested to use it only after I read in Ed's site that Ed found that it is an >>improvement against computers and maybe also an improvement against humans. >> >>I found also (after I read that Ed found that knowledge=25 is an improvement) >>that Rebel(knowledge=0) does not lose in a result of almost 60:0 against >>Rebel(chess knowledge=500) at 7 plied depth and it convinced me that Rebel knows >>some important things even with knowledge=0. >> >>I think that the numbers of the chess knowledge parameter were misleading and >>the minimal number should be clearly bigger than 0. >> >>I believe that this is the reason that people did not try to reduce the chess >>knowledge parameter in the Rebel century personality contest. >> >>Uri > >I also did not expect it either that lowering the Chess Knowledge parameter >would make Rebel stronger. In my tests I always increased the value of >the Chess Knowledge parameter. When I did a test with [Chess Knowledge=25] >(it was just curiosity) I was surprised to see the enormous speed gain of >the search. Then [Chess Knowledge=25] suddenly had my full attention. > >So the improvement was discovered by accident. No real surprise as most >of the time it goes that way. Chess remains a mystery, it is like a maze >of 2^64 entries and no exit. > >Ed
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.