Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 15:24:51 08/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 05, 2002 at 17:43:51, James Swafford wrote: >>>>Perhaps once you are convinced you are evaluating most of the really important >>>>things, this might work. I'm a long way from that point myself... >> >>It sounds to me like a strange problem, I think I will have to see that for >>myself to believe it. I would expect the temporal difference to be 0 if there is >>a knowledge term missing, so i don't know what could be going on. > >No... if you are missing something important, other parts of the eval will >attempt to "compensate"; terms will be adjusted too high or too low. It's >really important to get a pretty good set of terms for TD to work. > >An interesting observation if you think about it... suppose you know pretty >well what the weights should be. Then remove an important term, and see >what happens to other terms. The terms themselves may suggests what is >missing. (Schaeffer told me that, I've been thinking about it since.) > Ah ok, I will take your word for it then :) But if there is something missing, and other terms try and compensate, is that really a bad thing? It seems to me that you _need_ to compensate somehow for this lack of knowledge. The algorithm will do what it can, could be the weights will look strange to us, but if the result is better play then what does it matter? -S.
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.