Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:56:37 11/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 2000 at 11:50:12, Dann Corbit wrote: >On November 28, 2000 at 10:30:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: >[snip] >To add a bit, here is an output from a chess engine for one of the WAC >positions: > >Middlegame phase. > 2 -173 4 525 e5c6 d6c6 > 2 -173 4 1232 e5c6 d6c6 > 3 -188 5 1569 e5c6 d6c6 f6h5 > 3 -187 6 4205 g3g6 ! > 3 -123 6 4577 g3g6 > 3 -122 7 6316 f6h5 ! > 3 -101 7 7444 f6e8 ! > 3 -17 7 7746 f6e8 d6e5 d4e5 d8e8 > 4 -17 7 8247 f6e8 d6e5 d4e5 d8e8 > 4 -17 8 10898 f6e8 d6e5 d4e5 d8e8 > 5 -12 8 11626 f6e8 d6e5 d4e5 d8e8 a1d1 > 5 -11 11 22518 g3g6 ! > 5 383 14 33800 g3g6 !! > 5 999996 14 34042 g3g6 d6e5 > 5 999996 15 34369 g3g6 d6e5 >Learning score: 999996 best: 36 depth:5 hash: F45FB3C8 > >Notice that it 'found' g6 at ply 3. Was it 'solved'? Obviously not. Why not? >Because it had no idea how good the position was. Because of this, the choice >was easily abandoned at later ply. Given enough time, it found the right move >for the right reason and stuck to it. That was my point. I have no idea how Bruce could interpret my comment as accusing the author of the program of 'cheating'. I can certainly say one thing. I hope he never writes a paper for publication in any journal. Because often the reviews that come back ask for clarification or more data, and often the reviewer will give reasons why he wants the clarification. And most of us would _never_ take such reasons as accusation that _we_ did the same thing. We would take them as an explanation for why the reviewer felt more information was needed. "I don't trust a solution that has the right move but the wrong score, because I have seen (a) programs tuned to choose the right move to improve their test result scores artificially; (b) I have seen programs later change their mind and not select the right move, given more time, because they didn't understand how good the original move was; (c) I have seen programs play the right first move, but veer off into a perpetual for the same reason." Was what I said. I see _no_ way to take that as an accusation that the programmer/program in question did any of those. Instead, that is the reason why _I_ am personally skeptical of right move wrong score solutions, period.
This page took 0.01 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.