Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 15:14:17 06/02/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 02, 2004 at 09:55:28, José Carlos wrote: >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. > Distraction from writing a chess engine. English isn't my first language, maybe the word isn't actually used like this. I mean something which is outside of your plan - not necessarily that the plan is better or more important than the distraction. So, work can distract you from going to the beach ... ?! > >>Just my 2 cents of course ... >> >>Vas > > Just my 1.5 cents ;) > > José C. Ok, here I have to go down to 0.5 cents :) Vas
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.