Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 03:48:03 06/02/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 2004 at 10:07:15, José Carlos wrote: >On June 01, 2004 at 07:04:26, Vasik Rajlich wrote: > >>On June 01, 2004 at 04:52:32, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On June 01, 2004 at 04:45:12, José Carlos wrote: >>> >>>>On June 01, 2004 at 04:39:10, Sune Fischer wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 01, 2004 at 04:04:57, José Carlos wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On June 01, 2004 at 03:44:59, Sune Fischer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On June 01, 2004 at 03:27:37, José Carlos wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>It's a very powerful feature, too powerful IMO if not all engines have it. >>>>>>>>>I'm quite sure even Ruffian would lose 10-90 if Crafty had aggressive learning >>>>>>>>>and Ruffian just used a small book without learning. >>>>>>>>>You can be of the opinion that's a fair result, I think it is pure nonsense. >>>>>>>>>Granted, it demonstrates that Crafty has learning that works, but what other >>>>>>>>>conclusions can you hope to draw from it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I disagree but I think we can agree that it's a matter of taste. IMO, Ruffian >>>>>>>>has a very good selective search. Using your reasoning, we could say "if Ruffian >>>>>>>>beats Crafty we can draw the conclusion that Ruffian has a much better selective >>>>>>>>search, but the result is not fair, it should use only null move. Otherwise, the >>>>>>>>comparison is nonsense". :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Yesterday I played a few games on fics against a Crafty clone, I think it was >>>>>>>already game 5 where Crafty managed to repeat a won game. >>>>>>>I was very close to resigning already at move 10, the position was not lost at >>>>>>>that point but I knew the game would be of course. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>More importantly, where is the _fun_ in that, why even play the game? >>>>>>>Who in the world gets a kick out of seeing the same games over and over? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>-S. >>>>>> >>>>>> In my opinion, the fun is exactly in figuring out an algorithm to avoid that >>>>>>Crafty clone beating you twice with the same line. Don't you think it is fun to >>>>>>be smarter than a smart opponent? >>>>>> >>>>>> José C. >>>>> >>>>>No I prefer to focus on the algorithms and evaluation. >>>>> >>>>>Book learning is "fake elo", you only cheat yourself into thinking the engine is >>>>>better than it really is. >>>>> >>>>>-S. >>>> >>>> Human elo is also "fake elo" by that reasoning. >>> >>>Yes it is in a way, IMO. >>>It's hard to prevent with humans of course, the solution could be FRC :) >>> >>>> To me, chess is much more than >>>>search and evaluation. To you, it isn't. >>> >>>To me chess is so much more than memorizing book lines. >>>To you this is the main thing. >>> >>>> Ok, that's your opinion and I repect it. >>> >>>Ditto :) >>> >>>-S. >>>> José C. >> >>Ok, it's a matter of taste of course. I'm with Sune on this one. >> >>Note that being a chess engine developer is different than being a chess player. >>As a chess player, if you don't memorize a certain amount of theory, no matter >>how much you dislike doing so, it will cost you some games. >> >>As an engine developer, it's perfectly reasonable to restrict yourself to the >>engine algorithm itself, and let the existing tools handle the opening & >>associated learning issues. It's what software engineers call "modularity" :-) >> >>Vas > > Sure it is. But the same could be said about time management. That module can >be developed/investigated apart from the rest of the program. Or search and >eval. Could work together (some programs prune based on eval) but a simple >interface is enough and search and eval can be researched as different modules. > Note that my point is that book related tools can be also subject of a most >interesting research. Learning, for example. You have a limited space (you don't >want your learned data to get huge) and some fuzzy information (this line looks >promising or bad). You can use information about your opponent (rating reported >by winboard, or name of well known opponents). You make your decisions upon >statistic information (a games database + your own games), the result of your >search (this position looks good but I've lost the game), the game (I think I >made a mistake later but this position is acceptable), your opponent's moves >(his first move out of my book just killed me, I'll add to my own book)... > There's a huge universe to research about book, and it is interesting if >you're ready to think carefully about it. > And finally, competition is about winning games under the rules. Kasparov can >repeat the same opening against a program with no learning, and kill it 200-0 >with only two different games. That program looks _stupid_ to the world. If you >change Kasparov in that example for another program, you got a smart program and >a stupid program. > But as I told to Sune, it's a matter of taste. I like the program to do >everything but moving the wood pieces on the board! > > José C. It looks like Bob and Sune have pretty much covered this topic. :-) It's true that working on an internal opening book & learning could be interesting. It might even be that for a mature #1 rated program, it's nice frosting on the cake. For an amateur engine though, it's just a distraction. We have enough of those as it is. The various zero-cost solutions are totally sufficient. Just my 2 cents of course ... Vas
This page took 0.01 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.