Author: José Carlos
Date: 06:55:28 06/02/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 02, 2004 at 06:48:03, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >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. :-) Possibly, but my post came before that :) >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. Distraction. Distraction from what? Chess programming is for me a distraction. A distraction from work and other things I live worried about. I believe every part of a chess program is a nice thing to devote some spare time to. Martin Blume wrote Arena. It's a fantastic GUI, a wonderful piece of software. He could have spent his time on a search + eval thing, but I'm glad he didn't. >Just my 2 cents of course ... > >Vas Just my 1.5 cents ;) José C.
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.