Author: blass uri
Date: 01:37:17 05/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 02, 2000 at 02:29:39, Chessfun wrote: >On May 02, 2000 at 01:50:33, blass uri wrote: > >>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 > > >The Nunn 1 positions are not that odd, most programs have all >of them within there opening books. I agree to me it is as fair >as it can get. > >We all see enough posts about losing while in book, here we have >a given set of positions. This is similar to playing openings on >computers and reversing colors for the second game, which also >IMHO is far better for measuring strength than the current method. > >Thanks. I agree that playing openings on computers and reversing colors for the second game is better for measuring strength of engines but you may get different results based on the opening. It may be interesting to compare the result of the nunn match with results of games based on positions out of book from the ssdf games. I am not sure if the result is going to be the same. I expect crafty to get better result against Fritz than losing 15-5 in this case. 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.