Author: blass uri
Date: 22:50:33 05/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 01, 2000 at 21:50:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 01, 2000 at 20:55:15, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On April 30, 2000 at 22:58:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On April 30, 2000 at 22:38:10, Christophe Theron wrote: >>> >>>>On April 30, 2000 at 19:04:19, Chris Taylor wrote: >>>> >>>>>And now with some text in it? >>>>> >>>>>I restart both computers after each match? A re-boot. Do not ask me why? >>>>>Mayhap, to clear settings?? >>>>> >>>>>Chris Taylor >>>> >>>> >>>>But is it enough? I have heard that Crafty learns by position. That is it is >>>>able to remember the positions of a lost game and to avoid playing again the >>>>moves that go into these positions. >>>> >>>>In this case, replaying a match with the same time controls gives an advantage >>>>to Crafty. >>>> >>>>I don't know if Fritz has a similar system. >>>> >>>>In the case of learning by position, it should be necessary to erase the "learn" >>>>file when one wants to reproduce a match... >>>> >>>> >>>> Christophe >>> >>> >>>Why is that so. When I play multiple matches against a human, no one asks to >>>hypotize me to clear my memory. Do we now suddenly declare that _all_ learning >>>functions are 'NFG' and should not be allowed? >> >> >> >>The purpose of the experiment is to see what happens when the engines have to >>play from given positions that they have never seen before. >> >>We try to reproduce what happens in a match. >> >>You could criticize the small number of games for example, but not the fact that >>we want to see "fresh" engines in the match. >> >> >> >> Christophe > > >I criticize the fact that the concept of a "fresh engine" is nonsense. The >match already starts off in a position not of the program's choosing, since >no opening book or book learning is available, even though it is an _integral_ >part of the engine. > >Here is what I have heard, so far: > >1. Can't use crafty's SMP search. That isn't fair. > >2. Can't use crafty's position learning, that isn't fair. > >3. Can't use crafty's book learning, that isn't fair. > >maybe it is time we define "fair". IE is not fair something I do that others >don't do? Or is fair only the things that others do? The Nunn test is simply >'flawed'. Interesting, yes. But flawed. You can call the game that the programs play nunnchess instead of chess but it does not change the fact that the game is fair because both sides start from the same position. I agree that the result in the chess game may be different but it does not change the fact that both programs play a fair game. Uri
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.