Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 10:32:15 05/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 25, 2000 at 19:32:13, Simon Waters wrote:
>On May 22, 2000 at 19:55:54, Peter McKenzie wrote:
>>In any case, the main point of my post was related to how such tuning (whether
>>it be related to material or positional weightings) can be accurately tested.
>>So far nobody has commented anything about the validity or not of selfplay
>>testing!
>
>Hmm - well I tried a similar thing with simpler games and genetic type
>approaches.
>
>Here we needed some weighting to optimise play at a game - so I created a scheme
>to modify the weightings of winning programs to create new programs, and made
>them self play.
>
>The new generations would learn to beat the old ones, their off spring would
>beat them, and so on - however after a few generations it was clear the
>strategies were going in circles, like a never ending games of paper, scissors,
>stone.
>
>The lesson here is that most of evolution is not a struggle upwards - but
>running to stay where we are in the food change - that sounds like life to me.
That's a very interesting remark. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. For
me, it sheds some new light on the subject.
Christophe
>However whether this is applicable to your situation depends on what you are
>trying to tune, and how that feeds back. If it is just one value - like material
>value of a pawn - then I would expect it to be reasonably effective.
>
>Since many are hand tuned, and systemmatic approach to tuning will probably
>yield some gains - but don't expect large changes. Remember to pick a constant
>unit to base tuning around - most people use the material value of the pawn 8-)
>
>Gnuchess seems to use a test suite - followed by some bouts on the ICS.
>
>There are some classic papers on this kind of tuning problem and lots of
>research.
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.