Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Thinker 4.6b third after 1st round!

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.