Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 11:07:51 11/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 11, 2000 at 13:51:24, Christophe Theron wrote: >On November 10, 2000 at 14:57:06, Joe Besogn wrote: > >>On November 10, 2000 at 14:12:31, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On November 10, 2000 at 09:16:06, Mogens Larsen wrote: >>> >>>>On November 10, 2000 at 08:41:24, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>The question is how do you combine the 2 programs. >>>> >>>>Exactly. That was the point of my last paragraph. I suppose it would be >>>>essential to analyze where the strengths and weaknesses of the programs differ >>>>and interpret them as patterns recognizeable for some sort of evaluation >>>>function. >>>> >>>>I was talking with Bob about applying SMP knowledge to run different engines at >>>>the same time and base the selectivity on an advanced evaluation engine. I still >>>>think it's possible to implement and get good results. >>>> >>>>>I thought about the idea of a root processor that decides based on the root >>>>>position which engine to use. >>>> >>>>What should a root processor "look" for? >>>> >>>>>It can be based on previous evaluations of the program. >>>>> >>>>>I think that starting to use tiger13 when Gambittiger shows big scores may be a >>>>>good idea because when gambit shows a big score the job of attacking was done >>>>>and the problem of tiger that I found in the game against crafty that was posted >>>>>by thorsten was that it did not like to go to an endgame and prefered >>>>>speculation of 3 pawns and not winning a rook for a bishop but I do not believe >>>>>that it can lead to an improvement of more than 20-30 elo. >>>> >>>>It might be useful to make certain that the high evaluation of GT is maintained >>>>for x number of moves before concluding that the attack has accomplished a >>>>winning position by transposing to the endgame. Basically that would mean >>>>reducing or removing "speculation" altogether at a cetain point in the endgame. >>>> >>>>Maybe it's possible to encourage or favour the speculative approach in certain >>>>positions where the structure is immoveable in order to open up for the tactics. >>>>That might not necessarily be a good idea. >>>> >>>>Mogens. >>> >>> >>> >>>This discussion between you and Uri sounds interesting, and the ideas might be >>>true and useable. >>> >>>However I see a much simpler way to get an already significant improvement by >>>using Chess Tiger 13.0 and Gambit Tiger 1.0 together, and any owner of the Rebel >>>11 CD can do it: >>> >>>The trick is very simple: just decide to use either Chess Tiger or Gambit Tiger >>>depending on which opponent you have to play. >>> >>>During the beta test period, we have gathered informations about the performance >>>of the two engines, and we have noticed that against some opponents Gambit Tiger >>>was scoring very well, while against other opponents Chess Tiger did much >>>better. >>> >>>I should dig into my archives to find the right information, but I remember that >>>for example Gambit Tiger 1.0 crushed Shredder 4, and did 50% against Junior6. >>>Chess Tiger 13.0 did much better against Junior6. This has been reported by >>>several testers, who have played matches independantly. >>> >>>These two opponents are just an example. The important point is that Chess Tiger >>>and Gambit Tiger have different winning profile against different opponents and >>>it must be possible to take advantage of this. >>> >>>Given that against a given opponent the difference in winning percentage between >>>Chess Tiger and Gambit Tiger can easily be around 10%, I guess that the >>>difference between "using always the same Tiger engine" and "using the right >>>Tiger engine for an opponent" could be 5% in average, which makes an elo >>>difference of 35 elo points. >>> >>>Given the current level of competition between chess progams, 35 elo points is a >>>significant advantage. >>> >>>If the idea of selecting the engine depending on the opponent sounds shocking to >>>you, remember that this strategy is a main source of success for human players. >>>Human players KNOW who they are playing, and adapt their style according to >>>their opponent (and also according to the specific conditions of the game). >> >>Scenario: >> >>Big deal championship match between top program (better than Deep Blue) and >>world human champion. >> >>1. Top program can use any style it wants, play in a way previously unseen and >>kept hidden by the developers. >> >>2. Or, top program has a relatively consistent style, changes openings, but >>style variations are like a humans, not too much, so the style remains >>identifiable. >> >> >>(2) is what happens when human plays human, each can look at the old games, and >>get a general idea of what they expect. At GM level this research is very >>important, and knowing-the-opponent is a GM strength. >> >>Your proposal, while doable, takes human-computer games into the asme field as >>DB-Kasparov, ie the human has no pre-knowledge. This is unfair and should be >>outlawed. >> >>Thus I propose Rule 1 of computer program behaviour: a programmer may not make >>unknown or varied styles that enable the program to gain a surprise advantage >>over a human. >> >>Rule 2 should outlaw similar behaviour against other programs. > > > > >You must be kidding? > >There is no way to force a human player to play in his usual style. > >There will be no way to force any program to play with a "consistent" >predictable style. > >Your "forbidding rule 2" is completely stupid and impossible to enforce. It >would prevent programs to reach higher levels of intelligence anyway. > >If I want to write a polymorphic program and use it in tournaments, who's going >to forbid me to do so??? > > > > > >>Users need to know and have a relatively consistent style when they purchase or >>download, not some randomising monster. > > > > >Users call programs with predicatble style that you can beat several times in >the same way "stupid". > >And they are right. > >Looks like you want the programs to stay stupid forever... > >It can be a program feature to let the user set the playing style (passive, >agressive, whatever...), but by default the program on its strongest setting >should be able to vary its playing style. > > > > >>The things these programmers will do to gain rating points. >> >> >>> >>>The players able to adapt gain a lot of points because of this, and this >>>strategy is considered with respect amongst human players. >>> >>>I think that using Sarah's tournaments results (which are public) it must be >>>possible to see against which opponents Gambit Tiger performs better. It should >>>also be possible from these public results to see if by selectively using Gambit >>>Tiger or Chess Tiger it is possible to get a much better performance for the >>>"Tiger family". >>> >>>Then an experiment could be done in order to verify that the improvement is >>>consistent and reproductible. >>> >>>I believe an elo improvement of 35 points is possible. >>> >> >>Old paradigm thinking. Rating points are not important any more, Doh! It's style >>of play. Tiger's style of play (if it is what is reported) is what is important, >>not some silly chasing of rating points. > > > > >There are people interested by rating points. It's my work to satisfy them as >well as people interested by playing style. Most people are probably interested in both, as I am and I know you are. Why should you accept a dichotomy that doesn't make any sense? Enrique > Christophe
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.