Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 08:52:08 04/03/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 03, 2000 at 02:59:43, Ed Schröder wrote: >On April 02, 2000 at 18:41:22, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On April 02, 2000 at 18:24:06, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>On April 02, 2000 at 16:33:24, blass uri wrote: >>> >>>>On April 02, 2000 at 15:46:54, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>>> >>>>>It sounds like your tunable policy paid off, in terms of people discovering good >>>>>adjusted parameters? >>>>> >>>>>Dave >>>> >>>>Chess knowledge=25 is not an idea of me. >>>> >>>>I suggested to use it only after I read in Ed's site that Ed found that it is an >>>>improvement against computers and maybe also an improvement against humans. >>>> >>>>I found also (after I read that Ed found that knowledge=25 is an improvement) >>>>that Rebel(knowledge=0) does not lose in a result of almost 60:0 against >>>>Rebel(chess knowledge=500) at 7 plied depth and it convinced me that Rebel knows >>>>some important things even with knowledge=0. >>>> >>>>I think that the numbers of the chess knowledge parameter were misleading and >>>>the minimal number should be clearly bigger than 0. >>>> >>>>I believe that this is the reason that people did not try to reduce the chess >>>>knowledge parameter in the Rebel century personality contest. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>I also did not expect it either that lowering the Chess Knowledge parameter >>>would make Rebel stronger. In my tests I always increased the value of >>>the Chess Knowledge parameter. When I did a test with [Chess Knowledge=25] >>>(it was just curiosity) I was surprised to see the enormous speed gain of >>>the search. Then [Chess Knowledge=25] suddenly had my full attention. >>> >>>So the improvement was discovered by accident. No real surprise as most >>>of the time it goes that way. Chess remains a mystery, it is like a maze >>>of 2^64 entries and no exit. >>> >>>Ed >> >>That's kind of funny, but I suppose it shouldn't be completely unexpected. If >>you try increasing the amount of knowledge, and it performs worse, it makes >>sense to try reducing it instead... and there have been other stories of people >>removing knowledge from their programs before. >> >>Dave > >It is more complicated than that. The higher one set the [Chess Knowledge] >parameter the better quality of moves the thing will produce. Just play >a 100 games engine-engine match based on a fixed depth time control. The >higher you set the [Chess Knowledge] parameter the bigger the victory. > >So the [Chess Knowledge] parameter works and does the job it is supposed >to do. On the other hand a high value of the [Chess Knowledge] parameter >is responsible for loss in speed during the search which may lead to a >loss of a complete (iteration) ply. And losing an iteration ply seems to >be more valuable than the gain of the extra chess knowledge. No doubt this >is true for comp-comp but what if the topic is human-comp? Until now I >really can't tell. So far I have chosen that [Chess Knowledge=25] is also >better against humans. Am I completely sure? No... > >Ed I wouldn't be sure of it either. I do think it's a good idea to trade off some search prowess to get better pattern recognition vs. humans, though. Even if it's not stronger (and that is a possibility, as you suggest), it's probably more pleasing to play against. Dave
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.