Author: Uwe Immel
Date: 14:29:22 12/04/97
Go up one level in this thread
On December 03, 1997 at 16:39:00, Don Dailey wrote: >On December 03, 1997 at 14:00:50, Uwe Immel wrote: > >Hi, >I wouldn't attach too much significance to a single bad result. It will happen >to everyone. Can you say with any certainty that the book really got you into >trouble? Fritz is strong and this was certainly just a result of random >chance. I doubt there were enough games to draw a really strong conclusion >about this. Maybe you misunderstand me, I don’t want to put a rope around Fritz neck and hang him up just because he did badly in this tournament, I think, we all know, how to rate one single tournament result with 8,9,10 or whatever games. Fritz is strong, yes, and did very well in a lot of test sets as well in autoplay games vs hiarcs 6 too, but he claims (from my point of view) to belong to the absolutly top of chessprograms, so he had to prove this and in Paris he didn’t. So I just want to put up the point, that this statement sounds to me like some kind of excuse for the somehow poorly performance of fritz. >Also, even if the games were definitely bookproblems, the same reasoning will >apply, your sample of games is incredibly low. It could very well be your book >is excellent and you were unlucky to get into one of the few bad book lines in >your book. Sure, this could happen to every program and mostly in an important match :-)) >I have noticed, in my own case, that we take 1 tournament game 100 times more >seriously than any of the thousands we play at home. A lost game or draw gets >blown completely out of proportion.Whatever caused us to lose will become our >single greatest enemy and everyone will rush to point out the problem (but >rarely will anyone suggest a solution.) That makes the thing going on and keep it fascinating >We try to identify our biggest problems, fix or minimize them one at a time >and move on to the next one. We do not try too hard to fix a problem unless >we've identified it as a big one (or it's pretty easy to fix.) Our list is >very long! I’m looking forward to your child, hope it doesn’ takes too long till it’s born >I am interested in your book tuning methodology. Can you elaborate? Does this >one tournament convince you it is no good or do you haveother evidence? The idea is as simple as brilliant. Every game played against another program puts in addiction of the result (win,loss,draw) a positive or negative score to the played opening. In future games the program would prefer openings with positive scores and avoid openings with negative score.If there are enough games played, the program can be forced to play only such openings that have lead in past games to a win. A weak point is, that not always the the result of the games is a consequence of the choosen opening. Kind regards and sorry for my spelling Uwe >Don
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.