Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:51:19 03/05/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 05, 2001 at 20:59:05, Dann Corbit wrote: >On March 05, 2001 at 20:41:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On March 05, 2001 at 16:08:48, Andreas Schwartmann wrote: >> >>>On March 04, 2001 at 11:51:18, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>> >>>>On March 04, 2001 at 10:36:15, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >>>> >>>>>Die B.27 ist okay, unterscheidet sich kaum von der Paderborn-Version. >>>>>Gruss, Uli >>>> >>>> >>>>brilliant. i ask because i don't want that anybody feels disadvantaged. >>>>if anybody thinks he has a better version he is allowed to upgrade >>>>between the rounds. >>> >>> >>>And that's completely rubbish. If you update engines between rounds, what use is >>>the outcome of such a tournament? There is no consistency in this tourney! An >>>updated engine is a DIFFERENT engine, so you might as well not call it a tourney >>>but a set of engine matches. Hell, you might even start such a "tourney" with >>>Fritz 1 and end up with Fritz 7 ... and what would this say about Fritz's >>>playing strength? He started weak but ended up the winner nontheless? Har har. >>>In my opinon, the engine version that started the tournament should be the very >>>engine that ends it. No changing of horses in midstream or else the results get >>>worthless! >>> >> >> >>That's inconsistent with _reality_. All you have to do is go to a _real_ >>computer chess tournament, like the annual WMCCC events, and just sit and >>watch. Changes are made between rounds all the time. Changes to the code >>is very common. Changes to the book. Changes to the engine parameters. >> >>Why is this different from Thorsten allowing someone to fix a known bug? >> >> >> >> >>>Imagine Linares ... Kasparov gets bored in midtourney and gets exchanges by >>>Kramnik ... Shirov does not play to good, so he sends in his brother (does he >>>have one?) ... but that would not be a tourney anymore. Just like your Odyssee >>>with updated engines is no tourney in my opinion. >> >> >>I'll bet Kasparov _does_ change between rounds. He sees someone play a TN >>he hasn't seen. you can bet by the time he meets that person OTB he has >>studied the TN and found a refutation. > >Then again, it may be a matter of definition. > >Crafty learns as it plays. So, after many games, the actual play of the engine >may be a bit different as it encounters positions or openings it has modified >information for. > >This is very different from a code change and recompile. Not necessarily. IE crafty learns by playing a line to see what happens. It does _not_ anticipate what the opponent might do based on past games. It does not look at current round games to see what was played and find solutions to the problems it found. Etc. Humans do this all the time. I think what a human does between rounds is the same thing that a programmer does between rounds. I get attacked... in a way I haven't seen before, I remember that and try to avoid it next time the same situation comes up. If Crafty gets attacked in a new way, I modify the code so that it will hopefully avoid it the next time. I don't see a lot of difference, since machines really don't "learn" in the sense we humans use the word... > >If you are trying to produce a reproducable experiment, then you don't change >the parameters as you go. If you just want a fun contest, then do whatever you >want. Tournaments are definitely _not_ reproducible. In any shape, form or fashion... either human events, nor computer events where the authors are present. > >So, what are the goals? That should determine the conduct during the contest.
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.