Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 20:48:39 07/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 06, 2000 at 23:41:48, Dann Corbit wrote: So you're admitting your experiment is completely insignificant, cool. >On July 06, 2000 at 23:34:55, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >[snip] >>I see CAP as a classical scientific way to waste time on something >>which is insignificant compared to the goal you might want to achieve. >> >>If your goal is only to produce positions with an evaluation of >>a chessporgram added then you clearly succeed in that goal. >> >>If your goal is to do something that's useful for those who want to >>create openingsbooks, then i hope i have warned them for the fact that >>CAP data is saying nothing in itself. >> >>A score of +0.8 or -0.8, what does it tell us? It only tells us that >>a certain program's summation after minimaxing is this score, it is just >>too inaccurate to blindfoldedly go on the score of the program. >> >>When comparing it to a state of the art hand tailored book where you >>have produced a lot of games computer versus computer, then the >>CAP data is completely insignificant compared to these computer-computer >>data, assuming that data gets also hand interpreted. In the end >>only interpretation by an expert can lead to the awaited result. >> >>The CAP data+statistical information about GM games in itself >>cannot be used as a decision criteria if you want to get to a level >>where you want to beat hand created books by experts, >>wanting to be that it sure eats time making something like that. > >Another straw man! >Who said that CAP data + GM Games will create something better than years of >effort by GM players meticulously analyzing openings! What ludicrous nonesense! > >Draw yourself a circle on the ground. Make it 1 foot in diameter. We will name >this circle "6 million CAP positions" > >Now draw your circle of 3000 analyzed positions in the center of it. It is >almost surely better than the CAP answers, but how big is it? Pretty small, eh? >What happens when you step out of your teeny-tiny 3000 large circle? Shall we >just fall down and start crunching? What if (instead) we have a large database >of GM positions and CAP analysis and other data at our disposal. Maybe we can >use that information to move quickly and create time pressure for our opponent. > >Don't trust that idea? > >How much will it cost you to analyze those 6 million positions by hand? >Next year it will be 12 million, and at higher quality. >CAP will keep marching forward. Will your hand-tuned book keep up? >I doubt it. You will run out of money or energy or both. > >>It sure is better to have something instead of nothing, but we all >>already have something and that something are a lot of books and analyzes. > >How long will it take you to flawlessly convert those books into Computer >readable format? And if you did that, you could still use CAP data (or not) to >increase your probablility of making the right choice.
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.