Author: stuart taylor
Date: 17:42:20 11/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 11, 2000 at 14:07:51, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >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 I think Enrique means, both together. That people are only interested in rating points, when it is because of objective strength, AND not because of PLAYING STYLE! And I agree to that too. S.Taylor
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.