Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:34:30 10/03/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 03, 1998 at 05:55:07, blass uri wrote: > >On October 03, 1998 at 05:35:18, jonathan Baxter wrote: > >>On October 03, 1998 at 04:09:23, blass uri wrote: >> >>>In the ssdf list a program are playing long matches and I do not like it because >>>it gives an advantage to programs that are strong in learning a specific >>>opponent >>> >>>I suspect that fritz5 is a program that is strong in learning a specific >>>opponent >>> >>>I am not against learning but I think that it is better not to play against the >>>same oponent again and again. >>> >>>It is better for example that fritz5 will play the first game against Genius5, >>>the second game against Mchesspro7, the third game against Nimzo98... >>> >>>If it has not enough opponents and have to play against the same opponent many >>>times then at least it should play against other opponents before it plays >>>a game against the same opponent. >> >>I couldn't disagree more. Learning is a fundamental component of human thought >>processes. Why rule it out of computer chess, or invent arbitrary rules like you >>suggest to restrict the way the learning works?? > >because practically you cannot use the learning in tournaments against unknown >opponents by playing against them again and again. > >The results of the SSDF list proves that Fritz5 is number 1 in matches but maybe >it is not relevant to tournaments with unknown opponents > >Uri >> >>Jonathan Baxter Your "scope" it "too narrow". You are thinking of learning on a "per-event" basis. I am thinking of learning as a "lifetime" basis. IE things I learn in matches played *before* a tournament will most certainly help me do better *during* the tournament. And learning will also help me avoid repeated losses during the event as well...
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.