Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 10:06:04 03/17/98
Go up one level in this thread
>Posted by Dirk Frickenschmidt on March 16, 1998 at 16:54:41: >Hi Ed, hi Bob, >I think Ed pronounced the critical point where book learning is leading >us: >>If you can recognize the opponent everything is possible. >>Scenario.... >>Play 200-300 games against a SSDF opponent. >>You then have a learned book especially tuned on that opponent. >>Save the new book. >>Repeat that for every expected SSDF opponent. Save the new books. >>Release the program with these optimized opponents books. >>Being in AUTO232 recognize the opponent and load the "prepared" book. >>I am not in the mood to put energy in that. It's also a clear cheat. >>However if you manage you can enter SSDF with 2900. >This problem already has occured now in a slightly less drastic from in >at least one well known program. >What you get when you play this program are obviously pre-played >autoplayer-games merged into the book. Togeteher with strong book >learning this means sorting out the losses and playing only or nearly >only the wins which have been merged into the book before. >This leads the original idea of book learning competely ad absurdum. >What happens then, Bob, has nothing to do with learning *while* playing. >But with remembering autoplay wins which have been played long before. >No real games happens any more. >It's just replay. Seeing Bonanza once more: same film, same episode. >This is something which amuses me as a user without limits. >Why should I wait hours for a game which more or less is already in the >book? >Why not build in messages then like: >"Dear user. This game was a win in 63 moves against program x >Do you want to see the rest of the moves up to the late middlegame right >now or rather wait until the two programs have repeated them >themselves?" :-)))) >I accept Bob's idea that all would be nice and even *very* interesting >if you saw two learners play fresh from the start: clean books so far >(containg not a single autoplayer game played before), then trying to >specialize game after game one against the other, just like strong >humans knowing whom they play and trying soemthing... >But in our times of misuse of technical opportunities this scenarion is >only a fairytale, I fear, and far from the reality we already see. >So my question to Ed, Bob and all of you is again: >a) is there a chance for a technical solution of any kind, making the >misuse Ed and I described impossible or hard to perform(after defing >misuse of course in a more fundamental way than I just did: there will >be more than one opinion on this issue!)? As said, remove the double games. Result, clean engine-engine fights. That's what we want isn't it? I see no other solution. >b) is there a chance for a testing rule by SSDF which would make sense >(again: to a big majority of users and programmers and not just from >*one view*? See above. Very simple and clean solution. >c) is there a chance for any kind of agreement between programmers? Ed >doubts this for good reasons. No need, skip the doubles. I have said this for years. - Ed - >Kind regards from Dirk
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.