Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 13:00:26 05/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 24, 2000 at 09:14:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 24, 2000 at 02:25:40, Peter Kappler wrote: > >>On May 24, 2000 at 00:17:35, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>> >>>The problem is that the only "old" evidence was self-play with varied depth. >>>Which is probably not a good test, since small changes are often magnified in >>>self-test play, while at other times small changes have no effect at all. >>> >> >>This part confuses me. Why would self-play be inferior to a test suite? I >>don't understand what you mean by "small-changes" above... > > >The problem is this: If you add one small piece of information to one program, >and that is the _only_ difference in the two programs, then you will see that >piece of information influence the games _frequently_. Because one uses it >and the other has no idea about it. > But that's exactly the point of the experiment - to isolate and measure the difference in playing strength from ply n to n+1. --Peter
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.