Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:46:22 05/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
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 OK, how about this. I am a black-belt in karate. (inactive for several years, unfortunately, but a black-belt nonetheless). You and I have a disagreement. We decide to settle it by a battle to the death. You are an excellent pistol shot. A third party decides that this will be solved by hand-to-hand combat. Is that a fair match? If so, then I suppose we have to agree that the nunn test is 'fair'. If you think it unfair that our argument is settled in a hand-to-hand manner where I have the advantage, rather than by a duel at 20 paces where you have the advantage, then you get my point. Who says Crafty (or _any_ program) would play into some of those positions? If the program would _never_ play into the position, why should it be forced to play _out_ of the position?
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.